Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Lords Chamber

Tuesday 20th October 2026

(began 13 hours, 25 minutes ago)

Share Debate

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

15:58

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

that includes participation in society and employment, and their needs are very different to those of older age adults. So Baroness Casey's independent commission will consider reform for all those who need care, including working age adults. I should also say we are strengthening that. Join up that I referred to that I know noble Lords want to see to bring health and social care services so that people have a more integrated and person centred care by developing both neighbourhood services, but also reforming the better Care fund. And we are enabling people to have more choice and control over their care, for instance, by promoting the greater use of direct payments.

So, my Lords, I am grateful for the welcome for the work that we are doing. I completely agree how long overdue this is and as I say, that is a view I know shared on all sides of the House. But I hope that the commitment of the Prime Minister, but also the actions we've already taken and will take, will reassure your Lordships House about the progress that we intend to make.

15:59

Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)

- -

My Lords. >> Usually call the usual suspects, you've been waiting for this for 40 years. These are happy days, but I think we have to remember that what we're seeking is a lasting settlement, and therefore the National Care Service is only part of this. And what, my noble friend, agree that one of the really important things that Baroness Casey is doing in her research and and in her proposals is to encourage the national conversation, because one of the major problems about social care is that nobody talks about it in their family. They don't make plans. They don't make plans for what might happen or what will happen.

If we can actually encourage people to think about the future for their own family, including, of course, the huge contribution that the unpaid carers make. Somebody suggested millions. It is, of course, 190 billion plus that get paid. Carers do. But that conversation about what families plan will be the utmost importance.

16:00

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Yes. >> I do agree with my noble friend. I know she hasn't been patient for 40 years and nor should she have 40 years and nor should she have been, as she has pressed all governments to take action. And the governments to take action. And the public are important for a whole number of reasons, not least of all how this will be funded, but also because it affects all of us one way or another at some point. The first phase of the big conversation on care that Baroness Casey started closed last month, and the second phase will start soon.

I would also add that some 125 people have also been randomly selected for a public panel on care to look at reforms of key reforms and their views on it. So yes, consensus politically, consensus publicly.

16:01

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

- -

When we're. >> Looking at the interface between health and social care needs, and I must declare my role as president of attend the voluntary sector, have a large number of people who can contribute very much to this. And I'd like to make have confirmation from the Minister that they are considering clarifying that relationship between voluntary providers, both in the health care arena and out in social care, to define their accountability and their shared objectives, to make sure that their relational insights are recognised and that they're able to maintain their independent identity as a voluntary organisation, but are also recognised as being major contributors to enable the whole passage to be smooth and to provide additional support to those unpaid carers who are within a family, as well as the unpaid carers who are volunteers belonging to some of these organisations.

16:03

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, the voluntary sector has always had and will continue to have a strong role. The points the noble Lady makes are recent, very reasonable ones, and I go back to reasonable ones, and I go back to my point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about what I described as a mixed economy of provision, and it is. The decision on services will be down to local authorities and how they Commission.

16:03

Lord Lansley (Conservative)

- -

We have a. >> But not yet a roadmap. I look forward to it. But one component of that was referred to in the report on the 12th of October from the King's Fund. I hope the Minister has had a chance to to look at it on the future of social care reform. And it said that an essential element would be a cap on care costs. Indeed, the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon referred to Parliament has legislated for this in the 2014 Care Act.

Will the government now commence the relevant provisions?

16:04

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, I'm very grateful to the to the King's Fund for their thinking and also their examination thinking and also their examination of this whole area. I would take the noble Lord back to my point about Baroness Casey through an independent. Her independent commission is looking at this whole range of aspects, one of which he referred to important. It is. And she will make her recommendations and the government will consider that. I take the noble Lords point.

16:04

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

May I. >> May I welcome the statement and thank. Minister. I know the Minister very much. I particularly welcome the section in it to which welcome the section in it to which he referred about the collective pension scheme for carers, which is a seriously good idea, and I hope it can be introduced, as I say, at pace. However, the Minister also referred to unpaid carers and of course unpaid care is heavily gendered and is one of the main reasons for the gender pensions gap. Is my noble friend prepared to consider a proposal whereby there could be support for unpaid carers by payments on their behalf into this collective pension scheme.

16:05

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Excellent. >> Well, I'm glad that my noble friend welcomes the recent announcement. I think it's only right and fair and proper also. And like him, I'm an enthusiast for this. On the specific point the noble Lord makes. The noble Lady Baroness Casey will consider various matters. I think our commitment has been the first national collective pension scheme dedicated to care workers, so I. I'm not in a position to be able to agree directly, but I'm sure my noble friend will make sure that Baroness Casey is aware of his proposal, and indeed, I'm sure she will take note of this debate.

16:06

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

- -

On a point of clarification, could I ask the noble Lady if she could I ask the noble Lady if she can confirm that the reference is made to free personal care for older people? I think she referred older people? I think she referred to that on a number of occasions, that the thinking is that will also apply to working age disabled adults, because I don't think I heard her specifically say that. And of course, working age disabled adults may need long term care throughout their lives. So I'd be very grateful for clarification of that point.

And separately, very briefly, my Arthur noble Lady, on the day that the Covid inquiry's report, an absolutely devastating report on the impact of the pandemic on care homes is published. Will there be an opportunity for this chamber to debate that report?

16:07

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

That will be a matter, obviously, >> That will be a matter, obviously, for the usual channels, and I will ensure that that request is brought to their attention. On the point about definition, it's a personal care for older people. People will be free and will take the form that I've already described. We wouldn't want to pre-empt Baroness Casey in her absolute definition of that, and I should also reemphasize, although I think the noble Lord Lord Kamall referred to this, that existing council support for eligible people will remain. Baroness Casey will also advise on how free personal care should be introduced.

16:07

Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)

- -

My Lord. >> Conservative. >> Come the direction. >> Of travel and I think there's a fantastic opportunity currently with the health Bill going through. And if we really are serious about integrating health and social care, now is the opportunity to do it. Because one of the barriers to social care has been that budgets are being held by local authorities. Different budgets have created significant delays. For instance, even getting basic equipment for people that are ready for discharge. Will the government look into this and give it really serious thought? Because budgets are indeed the biggest barrier. And if we are going to be integrating care and NHS workforce, what a wonderful opportunity to do it.

16:08

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well. It is a wonderful opportunity and it is very opportunity and it is very challenging. But and I would certainly agree that NHS services and social care services have to work together and through neighbourhood health and also through joined up care. And that is why over £9 billion will be committed to the Better Care fund, some of that provided to local authorities, some of it provided to integrated care boards. I should also say on that we are acting now on workforce, on commissioning, on data and on digital infrastructure, whilst the Independent Commission does develop its recommendations.

But the point that the noble Lady makes is right. The health Bill is a great opportunity, but ultimately greater integration will come, I think, in the wider changes that we do make.

16:09

Lord Bradley (Labour)

- -

My Lord. >> If I. >> Miss the answer already that the Minister has made. But on the Minister has made. But on the social care workforce plan, when is it intended to be published and will it be published at the same time as the NHS workforce Plan to ensure there is clear integration between the two proposals?

16:10

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> My noble friend missed nothing. But I'm very happy to clarify. We, as my noble friend knows, we are committed to publishing the NHS workforce plan soon. We were keen to ensure that the views of the new Secretary of State were taken into account so that we could be accurate. So the simple answer is it can't be at the same time because the NHS workforce plan will doubtlessly come before there's a social care workforce plan on which more work needs to be done.

16:11

Baroness Uddin (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lord. Thank you. >> My Lord. May I first begin by paying my tribute to my noble friend Baroness Pitkeathley. For absolute decades of outstanding commitment and dedication to making carers lives better. And I declare an interest that I have a son who lives with autism and learning disability. So I really appreciated the comments that was made about making sure that adult with special needs and other care is something that's also addressed in this wonderful new opportunities to get as much right as possible. Having said that, I've been experiencing my whole family has experienced over the last three weeks the care of our mother at hospital.

And I can tell you, I mean, shivers down my spine about the incredible dedication of the staff in the hospital, caring for my mother and all the other mothers and grandmothers and everyone that's in the hospital. The transition, however, has been incredibly difficult. Not for my mother, because she has an army of extended family, and we're going to do everything we can when she arrives home. But there are many, many women who are laying in that hospital bed simply because the community care is not in place. So I think that the transition must be seamless or it's never going to work.

And we're still going to continue debating this for another 30, 40 years. The last point I wish to make really, is, and I have raised this issue on many occasions, given the desperate nature of local authority funding, there must be something in our approach now, from now on which actually designates the funds as I can't momentarily forgot, it's this. Designate the fund I can't remember. Yeah. Ring fencing. Thank you, thank you. Baroness Pitkeathley.

It's ring fencing. Was that government? Will the government consider this as part of the integrated care approach?

16:13

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Sure. That the whole House would share the noble Lady's comments share the noble Lady's comments about my noble friend Baroness Pitkeathley and the difference that she has made over the 40 years to which she referred. And I thank the noble Lady for bringing her personal experience of her family into the chamber on the point of discharge, which I think is what my noble friend was referring to. I'm grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Pigeon, who gave me that question earlier today. And and. I won't repeat myself, but just to say that we are acting across the whole discharge pathway.

And just this weekend, and I will repeat this, we did announce almost 140 million for 14 urgent care schemes, alongside 25 new or expanded sites due to open for winter. Because we do need additional urgent care capacity, but we also need targeted support for the most challenged hospitals, as well as a whole range of other things. And that is exactly what we're providing.

16:14

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

For ten years now, council taxpayers have had to pay an taxpayers have had to pay an additional 2% on their council tax for the social care precept. This now adds up to around about £300 for a band D property. Clearly, that varies across the country. Is there a hope for council taxpayers that in the brave new world, which I hope will come of free personal care, that council taxpayers will have a rebate?

16:15

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, the noble Lady does tempt me, of course, to usurp the Treasury, but I will resist her invitation. But I'm sure her invitation. But I'm sure her comments will be heard by the Chancellor.

16:15

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I want to join in welcoming a long term cross-party welcoming a long term cross-party approach to tackling social care. And I want to echo my noble friend Lord Carmel's earlier comments that social care and free personal care aren't necessarily the same thing in Scotland. We have had supposedly free personal care since 2002, and it was extended for the elderly, and it was extended for anybody over 18 from 2019, but unfortunately, free is never free. Somebody has to pay for it. And what we are finding at the moment in Scotland is that free personal care means you've got to be pretty desperate to get anything.

So definition of what these terms actually are and responsibilities of who's who's providing it are extremely important. And we've also toyed in Scotland with the establishment of, as I know, the noble Lady, the Minister knows well the establishment of a free National Care Service. And to date, since 2022, the Scottish Government has spent over £44 million to achieve absolutely nothing. So can the government please look at Scotland as a caution rather than a model? But please, can I be reassured that we are looking at it and learning for the whole of the UK to benefit pensioners and working age adults with disabilities who need care in Glasgow as well as Gateshead, and that we're not all going to have to sacrifice the triple lock for the pensions for nothing.

OK.

16:17

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, I have had the opportunity >> Well, I have had the opportunity to read the letter that the noble Lady had published in the media and. And I know the noble Lady knows this, but funding decisions on health and social care are, of course, devolved matters. And that doesn't change. But it is the case, of course, that Scotland, as well as the other devolved governments, do receive funding via the Barnett Formula formula as usual, and to the point she raises. Indeed, I totally agree with her that definitions are important, and that is not just definitions, but practice and how we're going to actually really make this long lasting are really the stuff of the independent commission.

And I'm. And that's why we've acted already. But the other thing is, of course, when I talk about a national conversation about social care, that does mean also learning from each other across the UK. And the noble Lady can define that however she wishes.

16:18

Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords. that everyone gets the same standard of care, particularly when there's going to be so many different service providers? For example, my mother in law came out of hospital, had two carers visiting her and every time she'd ask them to do a task, they said, we can't use the equipment or we don't have the training. And she turned around and said, what on earth are they being paid for? I can do these tasks myself that they're willing to do.

And she ended up cancelling her care.

16:18

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

That that that was the case. We have a whole suite of ways in which have a whole suite of ways in which we already, in the NHS ensure and we already, in the NHS ensure and seek standards. However, it is of course important. This is a personalised care service and what is right for one will not be exactly the same for another. And I know the noble Lady understands that. But the noble Lady also reminds me to make the point that in all of this we've got a great opportunity that's already happening about embracing technology, particularly in the home.

And whilst person to person care remains key, there's actually so much we can supplement now, which we didn't used to be like. Home monitoring kits, reminders to avoid missed medications, and for example, sensors to detect and prevent falls. All of these, along with person to person care, are enabling people to to live a longer and healthier lives in their own homes. Along with the extra money we've put into making adjustments to people's homes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether it's perhaps wishing to leave the chamber might do so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes.

16:21

Legislation: Armed Forces Bill - report stage

The report of the Armed Forces >> The report of the Armed Forces Bill Baroness Antrobus on behalf of Lord Coaker. >> My Lords, I beg to move that this report now be be now received.

16:21

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

Question is that this report be now received, as many of that shall say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. >> My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Before. We start. Debate on report. Stage, the first group of Report stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just rise rise to remind the House of some useful guidance on Report stage in the companion. In keeping with the spirit of report, I will of course keep my remarks brief. Firstly, speeches should be more concise overall, and arguments deployed in committee should not be repeated at length. Noble Lords should not summarise or repeat at length points made by others, and should not speak more than once, except with leave of the House, usually only briefly. To clarify a material point. Finally the house. The House will recall recently agreeing a Procedure Committee report that reinforced that when pressing or withdrawing an amendment, members must be brief and should not summarise the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment.

If we collectively adhere to this very useful guidance, and I believe we can make swift progress and complete the Report stage at a reasonable, reasonable time tonight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before I turn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In clause to amendment one. Baroness Antrobus. My Lords, before I turn to Government Amendment one, I wish to acknowledge the rather obvious point that Lord Coaker is unable to be in the House today. I am sure be in the House today. I am sure your Lordships will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery from his illness. He hopes to be back in his illness. He hopes to be back in the house next week. I'm also sorry that Baroness Goldie, the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, is temporarily away from the chamber, and I send the noble Lady my best wishes as well.

As a result, I'm here in the noble Minister's stead. As noble Lords know, I have been alongside Lord Coaker throughout all the stages of the Bill, and have learnt so much from the informed contributions of noble Lords across the House on this important legislation we share. I know a deep interest in matters of defence and security and in this context the text, specifically the wellbeing of our armed forces in all areas. Understanding the importance of that, not just for its own sake, but for the defence of our nation. So I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful scrutiny and constructive engagement with the Armed Forces Bill, both in this chamber and in the many conversations and meetings that the noble Minister Lord Coaker and I have had with individual members and interested organisations, I look forward to continuing in that constructive spirit in today's debate.

I should also declare an interest from the outset that my husband serves in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as a reservist. So starting with Government Amendment one, which takes forward the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommendation that regulations bringing guidance under section three four, three A into force should remain subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause two, page six. Line 24, section seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page six. Line 24, section seven. My my Lords, I. I declare my interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve. serving officer in the Army Reserve. I. I'll speak to amendment two in my name and that of my noble friend, my name and that of my noble friend, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie. May I also take this opportunity to send my best wishes to noble Lord Lord Coaker and Lady Goldie, and to

16:25

Lord Harlech (Conservative)

- -

welcome the noble Baroness Carr Minister to her place. So this amendment merges the two that I amendment merges the two that I tabled in committee and confines them to health bodies alone. That them to health bodies alone. That change, answers the noble Lord. The Minister's objection in committee, which was that national authorities which was that national authorities and Ministers make decisions about the armed forces community in general, rather than about general, rather than about individuals. However, where a health body is dealing with an individual, it would have to establish and record whether that person is a serving reservist, although answering would remain voluntary and a refusal could not affect any treatment, the body would then be required to have due regard to that person's need to meet the medical and dental fitness standards required for call out clinical need would continue to govern treatment decisions throughout, and reserve status could be weighed only as between patients of equivalent clinical priority.

So the provision is a tie break, which cannot displace a single patient with a greater clinical need. Let me deal at the outset with the noble Lord the Minister's point in committee that the amendment would require preference, irrespective of the needs of everyone else or with respect. It would not. And the text before the House says so. In clear terms. The case for the amendment rests on two things. The first is that the duty in clause two cannot operate on a cohort that nobody can see in committee. My noble friend Lady Goldie, asked the noble Lord, the Minister, directly, whether the obligation lies on the reservist to declare, or on the body to ask, and the answer was neither.

He told the House that it was not the reservists responsibility, and that the government regards identification as good practice, to be encouraged through guidance rather than a statutory requirement. So, my Lords, we're creating a statutory duty of due regard while declining to provide the means of exercising it. The noble Lord. The Minister also told the committee that the recording of someone's armed forces status does not always happen, as it could or should, and I agreed with him. The National Health Service has a clinical code for reservists, has had a clinical code for reservists for years, but it's barely used.

And in my own service, I've never once been asked when booking a medical or dental appointment whether I'm a member of the armed forces. My Lords, the second reason is capability. This bill extends liability to serve with recall to the age of 65 and a lower threshold for mobilisation, and each of those provisions assumes that the individual is fit to deploy the noble Lord. The Minister confirmed in committee that reservists will not be mobilised unless they meet the relevant service medical standards, which is precisely the point because a reservist who cannot obtain a dental appointment fails that standard and becomes non-deployable.

That is not an inconvenience, but it's a capability loss, and it's one that the state has created. By asking that person to be ready in the first place. My noble friend Lady Fraser, gave the committee the clearest illustration when her daughter, who I have the honour of serving alongside in first Battalion London guards, received call up papers for Kenya with the Welsh Guards. She'd been waiting treatment for a wisdom tooth and was very nearly un deployable. And were it not for the rules to be adapted, I asked the Minister two questions in committee and received answers to neither.

What is the department's assessment of the proportion of trained reservists who are currently medically or dentally non-deployable and will the government publish the fitness standards irrespective of what happens to this amendment? Nobody can have. Due regard to a standard. It is not permitted to see. This amendment creates no charge on public funds. So I look forward to to hearing what the what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say in light of this amendment, and indeed, from the conversations I've had with other noble Lords outside of the chamber, I feel that there is growing concern over this issue and that the government and the Ministry of Defence needs to start taking some action here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. I just rise very briefly in in support of my noble friend, because I've co-signed the amendment and I've co-signed the amendment and add my wishes that Lord Coaker gets better soon. Baroness Goldie gets better soon. Baroness Goldie gets better soon. But welcoming the noble Lady. And it's lovely to see

16:30

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)

- -

you there. My noble friend has actually already given you the example of. You know I declare an interest. My daughter's a reservist, but I think the problem we have here, and the reason I am so keen to support the noble Lord Harlech with this amendment, is that I think what the government and the people in main building think happens. And what actually happens are two very, very different things. And this is a very carefully worded amendment that isn't about putting, you know, putting any it's not about clinical need. It's not about asking people to do things that over and over, above and beyond, but it is about operational readiness.

And it is about ensuring that when there is a blockage in the system, there is a simple way to unblock it. And, you know, as I say, I think having due regard, that is very welcome. But if it is not actually being implemented, then we are leaving people unable to deploy because of things that are easily fixable. So that is why I'm supporting my noble friend. And I think whatever happens, this amendment, please could the noble Lady ensure that what the spirit of of the covenant and everything is that it actually happens on the ground?

16:31

Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)

- -

Yeah. >> Enhancement of the support that the NHS offers. Reservists in looking at the redraught that he's looking at the redraught that he's produced since that committee, I applied three short tests. Is it workable? Would it be beneficial? And is it fair? And I think the answer on all three is yes, workable, because, as he says, there are no essentially, essentially no additional costs associated with this. The people who would be eligible have already been deemed to have a clinical need for some sort of procedure or support from the NHS, is not expanding eligibility above and beyond that.

That is already there. And in fact, I think we have a easier mechanism on offer to mean that individuals are not repeatedly being asked the same question, because if we look at the debate that's happening on the health bill in parallel, we see that we are set to have a single patient record, and that, in fact, will answer a lot of the administrative complexities that otherwise have arisen. Were this amendment being implemented, absent what the health bill is likely to bring about. So I think it's certainly workable. Is it likely to be beneficial? Well, I think it's actually a very modest measure, perhaps too modest.

It places additional duties on local hospitals and community services. It does not place duties on general dentistry, for example. So it may well be, frankly, that more help would be of benefit, but it is certainly likely in its own modest way, to make a difference for the reasons that were articulated at Committee stage. And then the third question, of course, is it fair? Is it displacing large numbers of other people from the from the their place in the waiting list and just sort of doing a bit of a back of the envelope maths on that?

I think the answer is clearly not. I mean, we've got 6.25 million unique individuals waiting in England for some form of routine care, even if every reservist in the country were on the waiting list, we'd be talking about under 2% of the slots. So the differential impact on everybody else is minimal. And in fact, this is not a new principle. For those who are students of the National Health Service, you will know that between 1953 and at least 1997, the principle was well established that certain classes of veterans from the First and Second World War received priority treatment for certain conditions, and even today, rightly, merchant seafarers receive fast track access for routine care under the dreadnought medical service on offer at St Thomas's Hospital, so they can get back to sea as fast as possible.

These principle is well understood, has been in place for many decades across the health service. We're just looking to apply it in this particular case. So my conclusion anyway is workable. Yes. Beneficial. Yes. Fair. Yes. We're going to be having a debate in the next 12 or 18 months on the Defence Readiness and National Resilience Bill. We're going to need to have a lot more of this kind of national conversation. If we can't even get this modest measure over the line, I hesitate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to think about what the bigger debate will yield. Very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good. My Lords. I rise with some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise with some trepidation, noting. That the Minister is not in his place Minister is not in his place because he's ill, and the noble Lady Goldie is not in her place because she is ill. I have, for the

16:35

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

because she is ill. I have, for the benefit of the House. I have done a Covid test today. I do not have Covid, I have not travelled to Kenya or anywhere else, so I have not caught anything in international travel. So I think I'm fit and safe to be here. Obviously, we send our best wishes both to the Minister and to the noble Lady Baroness Goldie for swift recoveries and welcome the noble Lady Baroness Antrobus to this speaking role from the front bench. I'm delighted that the First Amendment is indeed a government amendment, and one that I assume is in response to the delegated Powers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Regulatory Reform Committee's request that we move. So To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Ensure that the. Any statutory guidance is subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Needless to say, we support that Needless to say, we support that from these benches at Committee stage. I also gave these benches stage. I also gave these benches support for the amendments. Brought in the names of the noble Lady Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble Lord Lord Harlech. And as the noble Lord has pointed out, this amendment before us today, amendment two is focusing very much on the health bodies. It is in many ways, as the noble Lord Lord Stevens has pointed out in many ways, a small amendment.

One question I suppose I have for the Minister because it also relates to an amendment I have in a later group, is whether she and His Majesty's government are satisfied that actually everything is in place at the moment, that if somebody is a reservist, they are going to be able to get the dental or other treatment. They would need to be able to go on deployment and are not going to be held back by a wisdom tooth, because clearly we need all of our forces, regulars and reserves to be fit for training and deployment whenever that is required.

So I am supportive of amendment two, but it would be useful to understand His Majesty's government's position on this.

16:37

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, may I first give apologies. To the House on behalf apologies. To the House on behalf of my noble friend Lady Goudie, who is unfortunately unable to be here today because of her illness. The noble Baroness, the Minister whom I welcome to her place, will have to make do with just one Scott on the opposition benches today, and may I assure the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me. Frontbenchers, I said frontbenchers. May I assure the frontbenchers. May I assure the House that my noble friend is well on the mend? I've spoken to her several times. I'm sure you can several times. I'm sure you can imagine, and has every intention of being back amongst your Lordships at the earliest opportunity. May I also wish the noble Lord Lord also wish the noble Lord Lord Coaker a very speedy recovery. We miss him. I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for tabling amendment one to respond to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I concur with the findings of the Committee and agree that the guidance on the covenant duty is subject to the affirmative procedure on amendment two, tabled by my noble friend Lord Harlech. I entirely appreciate the intent behind the amendment, and I would agree that better care for service personnel and veterans is required. Both categories of service personnel deserve the very best of health support, and this House has enduring admiration for their service. This is particularly the case given the government's expansion of the covenant duty to cover all health bodies. However, I would note that the person's military status is not necessarily relevant in all clinical settings, and as such, it might be possible that such a duty ends up placing additional administrative burdens on for little medical benefit.

Accident emergency departments already end up asking a vast array of questions to patients, many of whom are in distress or pain and don't want to answer a huge deluge of questions. I offer these not as a criticism of the amendment, but as some food for thought in the situation.

16:39

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

Well, first, apologies to the House for my keenness to get up and respond, but several moments I'll respond, but several moments I'll try and restrain myself for the remainder of the debate. And I would thank noble Lords, noble would thank noble Lords, noble Ladies, for their very kind words. I will pass on their thoughts to the noble Minister, Lord Coaker, and I'm grateful, despite the way that I acted for all those who have contributed to the debate. I, and I think, thank very much the noble Lord Lord Harlech for his service in the reserves for championing reservist matters as he is doing in this case and for his time.

Thank you to. In discussing the amendment as well. Now the government agrees that reservists must be medically ready for mobilisation. As as as much as possible, service fitness standards are already assessed. As everybody knows, through established three pre mobilisation medical checks and no reservist is mobilised unless they meet the required standards. I think we all agree and I am grateful to the points made, you know, by the noble Lord Lord Harlech and the noble Baroness Baroness Fraser about the specific case studies issues which I know from a service background. I do appreciate them and understand them.

So you're speaking to somebody who who is in sympathy, I would say. So the just quickly, in answer to the question regarding the number Lord Harlech asked about the number of personnel that were unfit or the proportion of reservists, I'm afraid we don't release information on the number of people deployable or the level that meet fitness standards for reasons of national security. So I apologise to the noble Lord that he didn't get an answer earlier, and I'm happy to discuss further with him outside the amendment. Amendment two would place a new strategy duty on UK health bodies to take reservist mobilisation status into account when delivering health care.

That does risk undermining the long standing principle that NHS treatment is based on clinical need, not on employment status. Albeit I note that the noble Lord Lord Stevens point about the Merchant Navy, which I wasn't aware of. We recognise concerns about whether a service status is consistently identified and recorded across relevant health settings, and I would say, you know, we we are committed to working on the gap that the noble Lord Lord Harlech identified and others have that other noble Lords have referred to. We understand that there is work to be done in this space.

This is not a statement. Disregarding the points made more. That the approaches that are taking are slightly different from the way suggested in the amendment. I agree the reserves are vital defence, as noble Lords will know in. In the light of the Strategic Defence Review recommendations, significant work is ongoing across the piece on reservist experiences will remain an important topic for discussion in your Lordships House. We are already working with defence and health officials through the Reserves Medical Readiness Summit, to identify available evidence and where we can work to improve that gap that I've mentioned.

That work, rather than a new statutory duty, is the right way, we believe, to improve reservist readiness. This bill already strengthens support for reservists by extending the Armed Forces covenant duty to health bodies, helping to address disadvantage arising arising from service light. We'll continue to work across government to help develop understanding of the covenant, and what practical application can look like to support our Armed Forces community, of which our reservists are a vital

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part. I beg to move. Question is that amendment one be agreed to? As many of that be agreed to? As many of that opinion shall say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. amend two Lord Harlech not moved. Not moved. Not moved. Therefore, we now come to the group of amendments now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment three after clause three. Amendment three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Smith of Newnham. My Lords, I rise to move amendment three in my name and consequential amendment, which I

16:44

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

16:48

Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)

- -

After clause three, insert the new clause as printed on the motion list. list. >> Very briefly, I would like to support the noble Baroness in what support the noble Baroness in what she said. It doesn't seem to me right that there should be two right that there should be two standards or two approaches to standards in relation to any serving personnel. And having lived myself in service accommodation, I met Lord Lilley not till I was a squadron leader because none was available. And now the services are smaller. There is more chance that service accommodation will be made available.

And if we want to ensure that not only the service person, but their family and their spouse or partner are also part of that family accommodation of a high standard for all is required. Thank you.

16:49

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. A committee, my noble friend Lady Goldie and I tabled a friend Lady Goldie and I tabled a number of amendments in relation to the new Defence Housing Service. One of which was to oppose the question. That clause three stands question. That clause three stands as part of the Bill. As my noble friend said then, I appreciate that the establishment of the DHS is a non-departmental public body is a settled position of the government as a result of its defence housing strategy. We did not sense sufficient support from around your Lordships House removing that clause, and for that reason we haven't retabled such amendment for report.

Whilst I do remain critical of the form in which this new body is to be constituted, I believe that if it is to exist, we must make every effort to ensure it works for those whom it is intended to serve. Our valued armed forces personnel. My Lords, that is why we have tabled amendments six and seven. These amendments are a simplified version of that which we tabled at committee, and would require the board of the Defence Housing Service to have three representatives of armed forces with recent experience of living in service family accommodation. The intent here is to ensure that truth is spoken to power, giving service personnel direct involvement in the operations of the new body, and a realisation that the remaining members of the board have lived experience amongst their number.

I am extremely grateful that the noble Lord, the Minister, took the time, along with, alongside his officials, for a briefing before the recess. I was reassured that the level of service engagement in the defence Housing Strategy and the fact that the government envisages ongoing involvement in this new service, and as such, I will not be seeking to divide the House on today on these amendments. My Lords, three from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. I do offer my support at that same briefing I previously mentioned. I did note that the government intends to run a second review to look at single living accommodation and produce yet another strategy.

I have to confess that being dubious of this proposal, would it not have made much more sense for the last strategy to address all aspects of the military housing, as opposed to only focusing on family accommodation and leaving those in single living accommodation potentially in the lurch? My Lords, whilst we are discussing such a key issue as defence housing, I must say that it is a grave concern to these benches and I am sure others that the government has reduced the budget for repairs to military housing. This Parliament particularly so given the absolute assurances made by Ministers during the public Bill Committee in the other place, on the 18th of March, then Minister Al Khan said, and I quote, the £9 billion has been ring fenced on the 26th of March.

He further clarified that the, quote, £9 billion will be allocated to Defence Housing Service and on the 25th of June, the Minister of Defence, Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard, gave a written answer, stating that 4 billion of that money will be spent, this parliament and 5 billion will be spent in the next Parliament. However, when the Defence Investment Plan was published a mere five days later, it allocated only 2.7 billion for upgrades to service family accommodation over the entire period from 26 to 30. My Lords, even this commitment hasn't been endorsed. In a letter to the chair of the Public Accounts Committee in September of this year.

The department confirmed 800 million of the investment into the service. Family accommodation had been deferred to the next Parliament and perhaps more worryingly, that letter also confirmed that a further 950 million deferral of investment into single living accommodation could the noble Baroness, the Minister, please confirm with a simple yes or no whether department stands by those last two last stated figures? Will there be a £950 million deferral of investment into single living accommodation? This is highly regrettable and undermines the delivery of the government's previous commitment. Could the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm whether or not the government believes this new funding profile is sufficient to deliver the full planned upgrade rather neatly?

The combined value of these two deferred investments is precisely equivalent to the amount of shortfall over which the then Secretary of State for defence and current Chancellor resigned over. And, my Lords. How will the Ministry of Defence find this money from its already overstretched resources, when the Treasury is still refusing to commit to a date, when defence spending will increase to 3% of gross domestic product?

16:53

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I would say as the noble Minister, my noble friend Lord Coaker has set out at Lord Coaker has set out at Committee stage and as he explained in some detail previously, the government does not consider it appropriate to tie the single living accommodation to the Decent Homes standard. What I will do, though, is address as many of the points that have been made as I can now on SLA. First of all, regarding the review which the noble Lord, Lord Minto referred to on single living accommodation that is ongoing. It was launched in 2026.

It is examining and developing recommendations on standards, including how they will be modelled and monitored, and it is due to be published very shortly, very shortly, and I look forward to discussing and debating the outcomes of that review as soon as it comes out. In terms of the standards, we don't consider the defence home standard to the noble Lady Baroness Smith of Newnham the defence standard to be the appropriate mechanism for assessing single living accommodation due to the nature of having shared facilities. As the noble Lady alluded to in discussing student accommodation. Clearly, we all had varied experience of student accommodation.

I certainly would want it to be probably of a higher standard than some of mine, but that was some time ago. And I also take the noble and gallant Lord Doyle Lord Krebs point about the state of service, single living accommodation and the importance of improving it. That is, I absolutely agree. Indeed, I have stayed in single accommodation over the last few years myself. I. I know that it needs improvement, in fact. And I've also taught non-commissioned officers and I know the problems that they have with their accommodation at RAF Halton, some of which are issues still to be resolved.

The noble Lord Earl of Minto asked me about the spending and the results. The Defence investment plan. We are going to be deferring £950 million this Parliament under current planning assumptions. So approximately 10,100 single living accommodation bed spaces will have been impacted by the dip. And so. But despite this deferral, there is substantial investment in SLA still programmed, including more than £1.4 billion of direct investment in new build SLA planned before 2030. So in the first four years of the Defence Investment Plan, moving to government amendments four and five, these are clarifying amendments to ensure the legislation is clear that the Defence Housing Service will benefit from Crown immunity for the transaction of acquiring property as well when it's when it holds the property.

This is the current situation in the Ministry of Defence, and the amendment seems to maintain the status quo in the management of defence property. My Lords, the government welcomes the intent behind amendment six and seven and confirms we entirely share the objective. The government is fully committed to ensuring that the Voice of Service families is at the heart of the new organisation. And I will briefly set out how this objective will be achieved. First, the independent board, which will hold the DHS to account, will include a dedicated non-executive member with service, family insight and I can.

When I say service family insight, I mean someone with in-depth experience of service, family accommodation. The recruitment for this crucial board member has already been launched, reflecting the priority the government places on this position, and a representative from the Army Families Federation will be involved in the selection of this candidate. Second, a governance framework has already been set up in advance of the DHS being formally established, which will ensure service. Family voices are heard in the day to day running of the organisation. A new customer committee has already been established, featuring representatives from the Armed Forces Families federations.

In addition, new regional customer experience committees will be established, recognising that the views of personnel and their families will differ across different nations and regions. Third, one of the benefits of the DHS being set up as a public purpose public sector organisation within the Mod family is that it will include military personnel on its staff and when I mentioned staff, I also asked for clarification. I'm talking about the staff in the Defence Housing Service, not the members of the board, to be clear. So the broader staff. This includes a new DHS Chief of Staff military position, which has already been filled.

And this post, as I've alluded to just now, will sit alongside a number of other military personnel working within the DHS, ensuring the voices, voices of service personnel are at the heart of the organisation. Fourth, the government is determined that DHS empowers service personnel and their families to hold it to account directly. In this spirit, the Secretary of State recently launched an initiative to pilot the sign off of repairs by families alongside a red tape challenge for armed forces families to propose rules and processes that can be simplified or removed entirely. I can give an example that was recently introduced.

Some may be aware, for example, the default right to have a pet in a service family home. That's just an obvious thing to make a default position, and we look forward in the mod to working with forces families to find out what other areas we could easily make changes that will make life so much better for them on a day to day basis, and less burdensome and bureaucratic. I could talk Haythornthwaite review all day, but I'm not going to get started on that right now. Parliamentarians, as well as Ministers, will be able to hold the DHS to account via its reporting to Parliament, not just on the outcomes it achieves, but on its responsiveness to the needs of service personnel and their families.

And I would say that in terms of military home satisfaction, that has increased by 12% over the past year, 2526, with 75% of families now saying they're satisfied higher than the 71.3% national average for civilian landlords, which is quite a considerable achievement. And I would I would say, considering the challenge that has been faced by the Ministry of Defence and this government with the state of accommodation. I hope I have provided the necessary assurance for the noble Baroness Ladysmith, and that she can withdraw her amendment.

17:00

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her noble Lady, the Minister, for her response, and clearly it is significant that His Majesty's significant that His Majesty's Government is looking into a review for single living accommodation. for single living accommodation. But as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, funding has been reduced for single living accommodation and if it is indeed the case that a report on single living standards is going to be coming forward, then having this amendment to the Armed Forces Bill surely will enhance the hand that the Mod will have in ensuring that single living accommodation is up to standard, and therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

17:01

Division

17:14

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

helpful and the government amendments in this group are welcomed, and I thank her for that. I'm sorry Lord Coaker is not able to be in his place, and the same for Lady Goldy and hope they both recover swiftly. And I look forward from hearing from Lord Katz in due course on this bill. Despite the fact that there are nearly 17 amendments in this group, a number are responding to the Delegated Powers and regulatory reform report, as well as issues raised by myself and by the Bishop of Norwich in our respective movements. Turning to my amendments, seven A and seven B, which I have laid in the light of the response at Committee stage and the discussion that we had at the meeting last week with the Ministers.

Amendment seven A would provide a co-ordinated multi-agency response known as massip, to cases of stalking across military and civilian public bodies, which will improve risk management and victim protection. Now, the aims of this bill to ensure that the military court system provides as close a similar system for victims of serious crimes as the civil system is laudable. But as Lady Royal and I mentioned at committee, there are still some marked differences in the treatment of stalking offences and therefore victims of stalking compared to the civilian system. Amendment seven A uses the language used in both the Home Office and Ministry of Justice and in recent legislation.

Amendment seven B would require the Secretary of State to publish annual reports on progress in addressing, stalking and managing it within the Armed forces, including data on service stalking, protection orders, the implementation of mass IPPs and specialist stalking training. My Lords, earlier on I relayed amendments eight, nine and ten on stalking, protection orders. Continuity of protection as individuals who have either been stalked or have been convicted of stalkers move between the military and the civilian world and importantly, that the Service Victims Code must always apply to victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse offences, including giving service victims the right to access victim services.

These were laid before the Minister had laid his amendment. Amendments G 11 to 15. They don't. The government amendments don't go quite as far as I would like, but they are progress and I recognise that. I've also signed the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich's amendments, including the protection of Service police officers in the broader legislation to protect the police and other emergency workers, which seems eminently sensible, and his amendment 48, which seeks to make impersonating a service police officer an offence and giving service police the same protections as their civilian counterparts. They are really important amendments, and I'm delighted that the Minister has laid amendments to bring these into law.

Amendment 11 specifically ensures that the Victims Code in Service justice system will be presented to Parliament, and this responds to some of the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee, but provides a partial reassurance to my concerns that reviews of the implementation of this new legislation would not be reviewed publicly or transparently, and if that's carried through, it will be. However, I'm still not sure that these government amendments provide as much protection for victims as I would like, and certainly they don't quite yet match the civilian standards, including those people being stalked. And as the amendments that I've laid and look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister, and in the meantime, I beg leave to move my amendment seven a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause seven insert the new clause, the words of which are on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supplementary list. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 47 and 48 and 40, 47 and 48, in my name, and that of the

17:18

The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

- -

noble Ladies Baroness Goldie and Baroness Brinton. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, to her place, and I wish the noble Lord Lord Coaker, and the noble Lady Baroness Goldie well, and a speedy recovery from whatever bugs or beasties have got them. I declare an interest. As the father of a soldier, I'd like to pay tribute to the way the noble Lord Lord Coaker has listened well and sought to improve this bill. The Minister has worked in a positive way with the amendments I brought at Committee stage and now at report that seek as the noble Baroness, the Baroness.

Noble Lady Baroness Brinton has already said, seek parity for service. Police with their civilian counterparts when they are assaulted or impersonated. I thus fully support the government amendments 45, 46 and 47, and I'm grateful to the Minister and to the officials who have worked on the complexity of these amendments across the nations of this country. So thank you to the government for listening to Service Police and for bringing these important amendments. It will not be a surprise to your Lordships that I will not be moving the amendments in my name.

17:20

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I was assuming that my noble friend Baroness Brinton had made all the points that needed to made all the points that needed to be made and wasn't intending to speak, so I will merely reinforce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everything she said. My Lords, I am pleased to support the efforts of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, to include service police officers in the scope of the offences of assaulting an emergency worker and impersonating a police

17:20

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

officer. And to that end, I signed his amendment at committee and my noble friend Lady Goldie has signed noble friend Lady Goldie has signed them again today at committee. Noble Lords will recall. I raise the further point that the differential treatment by the law towards civilian police and military police is also replicated in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and I'm pleased that the right reverend Prelate has updated his amendments to reflect this. It is particularly welcome that the particularly welcome that the government has listened, realises right reverend Prelate has identified a lacuna in the law and acted.

When the government does right, we, His Majesty's opposition, will support them as such. Amendments 44, 45 and 46 have the full support of these benches.

17:21

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I will begin by addressing amendment eight and thank the noble Lady Baroness thank the noble Lady Baroness Brinton for her views for her contribution to the debate and indeed through Committee stage as indeed through Committee stage as well. And I would like to join her in thanking the work of the Royal in thanking the work of the Royal New Dawn and Suzy Lamplugh Trust, who. Of course, their invaluable work on this important issue has very much aided, I think, all noble Lords consideration of this very important issue. I'll deal first with the issue of specialist stalking, training.

The service. Police already trained to nationally recognised standards. The Defence Serious Crime Command maintains alignment with the College of Policing's Professionalising investigation programme and our service. Police receive offences specific training aligned with the college policing standards. We will build on these arrangements with stalking the stalking specific training not only for service police but also frontline personnel. This will enable personnel to recognise stalking behaviours, understand escalation and risk, and apply and enforce the new orders effectively. I'll turn now to clause seven A from noble Lady Baroness Brinton on multi-agency stalking. Intervention programmes may sip a statutory SIP model will not be practical in the service context.

Cases may involve different jurisdictions across the UK and overseas, or local provision and responsibilities vary. Prescribing a single programme in legislation could constrain the flexibility needed to assemble the right partners around each case, leading to duplication of existing safeguarding arrangements and indeed, uncertainty over accountability. However, we recognise the importance of multi-agency working in information sharing. Our advance Against Women and Girls Taskforce will draw on expertise from across government and the wider vawg sector to connect multidisciplinary networks and work closely with the Victim Witness Care Unit. Together, they will deliver risk management and victim protection. Turning to amendment nine, the bill already provides continuity of perfection protection.

A service stalking protection order will automatically convert into a civilian stalking protection order when the person ceases to be subject to service law or service discipline, removing the need for a new order. That. Legal continuity, my Lords, is supported by existing operational arrangements. The Defence Serious Crime Command Police Public Protection Unit can notify civilian forces when an order is imposed. Service police can also share information through public protection notices, National Policing Systems, direct liaison with civil civilian public Protection Units and the Service Police 24 hour operation room. These mechanisms ensure that responsibility for enforcement can pass between jurisdictions without interrupting.

Protection. Training, referrals and information sharing are better maintained through guidance and operational practice, so they can be updated quickly. As risks and policing practice evolve, we will continue to work with specialist organisations, the military, court service, the service, police, the armed forces and civilian partners to design and implement effective training, guidance and support to victims across the defence establishment. The government recognises the concerns raised in the operation of these orders and the intention behind our new course behind nuclear OR-7 be requiring annual reports on progressing. In addition, in addressing stalking in the Armed Forces to reassure the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, the government will commit to update Parliament on the effectiveness of service stalking protection orders 12 months after the provisions have been commenced.

Turning to amendment ten Victims Code, all victims within the service justice system are entitled to support. Under the code, victims in the Service justice system, should they choose to receive it, irrespective of the nature of the offence committed against them. This includes victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse where specialist support is available. The code for victims in the service Justice System provides parity with the statutory rights for victims in England and Wales, and will contain the same key principles within legislation set out at clause 11 and the same 12 rights to ensure that victims of service offences and civilian victims receive equivalent standards, protections and entitlements.

If a service person is a victim whose case is being investigated by the Civilian Criminal justice system, defence policy gives personnel the right to comprehensive welfare support, including specialist welfare delivered by trained staff where necessary, regardless of the civilian criminal justice system outcome. The Victim Witness Care Unit is well placed to support those who are dealt with in the service justice system by providing information and updates as the case progresses through dedicated victim liaison officers, but they do not provide welfare support, extending the victim of the remit of the Victim Witness Care Unit to victims in the criminal justice system will not materially change the services provided to such victims.

Turning to government government amendments 11 to 15. These simply give effect to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendation that the code of Victims in the Service Justice system receive the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as the civilian code for victims in England and Wales. Indeed, I am pleased that the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. Indeed, I think the opposition frontbenchers will recognise them as progress. So turning to government amendments 44, 45 and 46, I'd like to begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, for raising this important issue at committee. The government welcomes the intent of these proposals.

Indeed, I believe they're welcome across your Lordships House and agrees they will have a positive impact, and you continue to provide the necessary and important protections for our service police. As a result, the government has tabled the following amendments. Amendment 44 amends the Assaults on Emergency Workers Offences Act 2018 to list the Service police as an emergency worker within section three additionally ensures consistency by including the Service police. The equivalent legislation in Scotland. The Emergency Workers Scotland Act 2005. This will provide prosecutors with an additional offence to consider as appropriate. Where incidents of assault on service police are reported subsequently, section 68 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended to include service police.

This again defines emergency workers for the purposes of this act, where section 67 requires courts to treat offences committed against emergency workers as an aggregate aggravating factor that increases the seriousness of that crime. Amendment 45 apply section 90 of the Police Act, 1996 to members of the Service Police Forces and provides that in its application to service police. Section 90 has effect throughout England and Wales and Scotland. For Northern Ireland, amendment 46 applies. 67 of the Police Northern Ireland Act 1998 to members of the Service Police. Taken together, these provisions mean that the relevant impersonation offences will apply in each of the three UK legal jurisdictions.

I hope this provides the necessary reassurances to the right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, and so I hope he feels that he is able to withdraw his amendments and support the government has brought forward to address his concerns, and I hope, indeed, that the. My previous comments are assured. The. Gave enough assurance the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, so that she can indeed withdraw her amendments.

17:28

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Very grateful to the noble Lord, >> Very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response on these details. I mean, I think without taking any time at all just without taking any time at all just to say that progress has been made, but I'm not quite sure yet that we've got the parity that the we've got the parity that the Minister spoke about at the despatch box between the civilian system for supporting victims and stalking victims separately, but both of those. But it is improving. And for that, my Lords, I'm very grateful. We certainly heard from Aurora, new Dawn and Suzy Lamplugh Trust that there was concern about people moving from the military environment into the civilian environment, whether protection orders and other things would move swiftly.

And actually, if that's going to happen, if the one thing that the amendments have done and these two organisations have done is to make sure there is a smooth transfer, then that is also going to be a win. The victims code being written into law is extremely helpful for for the military side as well. On that basis, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to withdraw my amendment. Did your Lordships pleasure with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did your Lordships pleasure with amendment seven A be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment seven be Baroness Brinton Amendment seven be Baroness Brinton not moved, not moved. Amendment not moved, not moved. Amendment eight not moved or nine not moved. eight not moved or nine not moved. Well ten not moved. Question is that clauses 11 to 15 be agreed to. En bloc Baroness Antrobus move. Formally the question is amendments 11 to 15 be agreed to. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content. Of the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

after clause 27. Amendment 16. Baroness Brinton.

17:30

Amendment:16 Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I have relayed Lord Thomas of Gresford amendment from Thomas of Gresford amendment from Committee stage and have done so because he is still recuperating from his surgery a few weeks ago. from his surgery a few weeks ago. We miss him and hope to see him back here very soon. Lord Thomas of Gresford is the president of the Gresford is the president of the Association of Military Court Advocates and has repeatedly raised in your Lordships House the issue of the arrangements for sentencing in a court martial at the Second Reading of this bill, Lord Thomas said in this country the sentence is determined by the board sitting with a judge advocate who advises the members on the law and the scale of the sentence recommended by the Sentencing Council for a particular offence.

In the event of an equality of votes amongst the members of the board, the Judge Advocate has a casting vote. I have argued in the last two Armed Forces Bill that in the modern era, the judge advocate in the UK system should sentence alone on the basis that the exercise of sentencing today is highly technical and beyond the competence and experience of the lay members of the board who, unlike magistrates, have no training and have probably never been in a court before and are unlikely to be there again, end quote. At Committee stage, I referred Lord Thomas's arguments in this matter and Lord Coaker responded to me, saying the judge advocate is, of course, the expert on sentencing.

It's true that any sentence passed by the court martial must be determined by a majority vote, meaning the judge advocates vote could theoretically be outweighed. However, the judge advocate will give the board the legal framework, identify the relevant sentencing guidelines and sets the proper parameters within which the sentence must be considered. Failure to have regard to these guidelines and parameters opens the way to an appeal in the Court Martial Appeal Court. Later, he added it's also important to remember that while military experience informs sentencing, it does not displace the legal principles governing it. Any mitigation advanced on behalf of an offender, whether arising from a previous operational service, commendations, awards or personal circumstances must be assessed within the sentencing framework directed by the Judge Advocate and in accordance with the applicable sentencing guidelines.

To be clear, he said, the board members are not free to substitute personal views of military merit for the lawful sentencing exercise and any sentence that failed properly to reflect the relevant legal principles would be liable to appeal. My Lords, the problem is that these two paragraphs actually contradict each other. If the judge advocate advises the other members of the panel to go in one direction and they choose not to, then the judge advocate vote is powerless against the majority, arguing that any such decision could then be liable for appeal. Demonstrates exactly the argument that the judge advocate is the expert.

So can I ask the Minister if there's any data collected on the reason for any appeals in court martial since 2011, where we could see if this was actually an issue rather than a matter of principle, that Lord Thomas says it is important and we should consider. And if there are any examples, how many relate specifically to a majority decision made against the advice of the judge advocate? That's why amendment 16 proposes that the judge advocate should make the decision alone. And whilst we're not going to make progress on this today, my Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is undoubtedly an expert in this area and his argument is effective and aims to strengthen the court martial.

I suspect we may return to this in the future. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 27 in. Insert the new clause, the 27 in. Insert the new clause, the word to which. On page seven, under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

martial. Well, I thank the noble Baroness,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the noble Baroness, Printing for tabling amendment 16 on behalf of the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I would like to join her in wishing him very well a speedy recuperation, I hope. We all hope, join her in hoping to see him back in his place as soon as. As the government set out at committee, I think I'm going to quote committees extensively as the noble, noble Lady did the judge advocate and the service members of the board discussing and deciding on sentence to sentence together is not, in our view, an anomaly or a weakness of the court martial.

It is indeed one of its strengths. I acknowledge the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Gresford concerns that lay board members may have not had the training and exposure in matters of sentencing the judge, advocates and magistrates have had. While the board members exercise unrestricted sentencing powers. The judge advocate in any case, is the expert on sentencing. As my noble friend Lord Kakkar said at committee, they give the board the legal framework identifying, identify the relevant sentencing guidelines and set the proper parameters within which the sentence must be committed. The discussions of the board, like the deliberations of a Crown Court jury, are confidential and should never be disclosed or discussed outside the board itself, so no formal records are kept of individual views expressed during board deliberations, failure to have regard to the relevant guidelines and parameters in sentencing would open the way to appeal in the Court Martial Appeal Court and in response to the Baroness Brinton questions from 20 2520, appeal notifications were submitted to the court martial appeals court martial Appeal court 12 were related to the conviction, seven to the sentence and one appeal was related to both conviction and sentence.

These eight are just over 3% of all the court martial sentences in 2025. There is no information recorded about whether a majority decision was made against the advice of the judge. Advocate for the reasons that I have already set out, the amendment would reduce the board's role from one of equal participation to one of consultation only. That is the board's understanding of modern service life, operational pressures, values and standards, and current military capability and technology could be consulted but ultimately rejected. The current position whereby the judge, advocate and the military members of the board discuss and decide sentence together is one of the strengths of the court martial system.

The balance is the right one. The government would contend the balance is the right one. The judge advocate provides the legal expertise and safeguards, and the lay board members provide current military experience and judgement. The recent court martial appeal court judgement in the case of R

17:36

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

versus Daniel Barton, Kennedy acknowledged the value of this collective military experience collective military experience expertise in applying sentencing guidance to reach the appropriate sentence. I hope I provided at least some assurance to that noble Lady in absentia, the noble Lord, Lady in absentia, the noble Lord, Lord Lord Thomas of Gresford. I suspect from her comments we may be revisiting this at a future date, revisiting this at a future date, but for the meantime, we will hope that she is content to withdraw her amendment.

17:37

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Very grateful for the noble Lord. The minister's response, which was very similar to that of Lord Coaker at Committee stage, which is perhaps not a surprise. I think if Lord Thomas were in his seat, he'd say it matched the responses that say it matched the responses that he's had now over nearly 15 years of raising this issue, not just in the Armed Forces Bill, but also in a number of regulations as well. I know he feels passionately about this as a matter of principle, and I think we will find try and find another vehicle by which we can raise this forward.

In the meantime, my Lords, I withdraw the amendments.

17:37

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

Is it your Lordships pleasure that amendment 16 be withdrawn? Amendment is by leaving rule number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

17, Baroness Antrobus. I rise to move the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move the government amendment 17 to 21, which are consequential on clause 32. They do not alter existing policy, but update section 13 of the Reverse Reserve Forces Act 1996 to reflect the direct transfer agreements arrangements in primary legislation. This will preserve the existing position that ex regulars who leave the volunteer Reserves before completing any remaining compulsory reserve liability, will revert to the Ex regular reserve for the balance of that period. Amendments 19 to 21 protect the choice of those who have chosen not to accept the changes to terms and conditions of service introduced by the Armed Forces Bill.

Without these amendments and an individual who subsequently leaves the Volunteer Reserve could be automatically brought back into the new arrangements. So these provisions ensure that their original decision is respected and preserved in legislation unless they choose otherwise. Whilst it is right that we introduce these measures to strengthen defence readiness and improve our access to trained personnel, it is equally right that we provide service personnel with a clear choice. These amendments strike that balance enhancing readiness while safeguarding individual decision making.

My Lords, I beg to move.

17:39

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed clause 32, page 57. Line 16 leave out and page 57. Line 16 leave out and three and insert to three a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three and insert to three a. My Lords, I have countersigned my noble friend Lord Harlech my noble friend Lord Harlech amendment number 23, which is about the right to time off for reservists. I hope I do him some justice by talking to his amendment, but I speak as an employer of a very small charity, and this amendment will only apply to businesses with 50 or more employees. So. And it would give them a right up to ten days unpaid leave per year to fulfil specific requirements of a reservist. Now, these requirements are outlined by section 22 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and they, importantly include a period, an annual period of continuous training.

This amendment also include the right to time off for a course of instruction leading to promotion, or the award of a qualification recognised by the Defence Counsel. You could only. You could only be covered by this amendment. If you have been an employee for not less than 26 weeks. So it's not a day one entitlement. There must be reasonable and written notice for the employer. And very importantly, because we all know how these things sometimes work. If the training is cancelled or curtailed, the employee can get the time, get the days back because of courses and and camps do get moved.

As we know now in committee, the noble Lord Lord Coaker was concerned that this would create an additional workforce, administrative or operational pressure for employers and those those that might be particularly significant, where employers rely on specialist skills or shift patterns. Well, I employ people with specific clinical skills that are booked up to provide appointments to children and adults with cerebral palsy up to six weeks in advance. And I come across these issues when staff are called up for things like jury duty. And there is often a mechanism whereby people can say, I'm terribly sorry, I can't make the date that I've been called up for.

And so there is an element of toing and froing that suits both the employee, the public duty and the employer. And I was minded to look up as an employer what I need to statutorily give employees time off for for public duties, regardless of whether I employ 50 employees or not. And, you know, I noticed that all employees must be allowed to take time off for jury service. Fine. But what qualifies for other reasonable time off includes being a magistrate, a councillor, a school governor, a member of any statutory tribunal, member of a managing or governing body of an educational establishment, a member of a health authority, a member of a school council or board in Scotland, a member of the Environment Agency or Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

A member of a prison independent monitoring board, a member of Scottish Water, a water customer consultation panel or a trade union member for trade union duties. So I am slightly surprised, therefore, that you are not already entitled as a member of the Reserve Forces not to to be able to to request time off, I need to declare an interest because this is another debate. My daughter is a serving member of the reservists, and this comes back to the previous date about operational readiness. The reason the Reserve Forces Act states specific training time, and particularly the annual continuous time off, is to ensure operational readiness.

And at the moment, employees in the armed in the reserves only have certain protections if they are called up for service, not for their routine readiness. And I know that there are continuous problems for people in trying to juggle the needs of their employer with the needs of their voluntary. I note that it is a voluntary commitment to be a reservist, but I feel that in current times and our focus on operational readiness, we should be making it as easy as possible, both for the reservists to be encouraged to continue with their with their service year after year, and to put them, frankly, on a par with members of the Scottish Water or Water customer consultation panel.

And and and that they should be allowed the right to reasonable time off. Now, I do not wish this. This amendment in no way jeopardises the already existing schemes for employers. You know, the voluntary commitment that various businesses sign up to, whether gold or silver. But to be frank, there aren't enough businesses signed up to gold and silver in protection of the Armed Forces Covenant. And, you know, I completely support these routes to to promote genuine, practical, voluntary support from employers. But at the end of the day, if we are trying to encourage operational readiness of our reserve forces, this we always call them modest amendments in order to smooth the path of the, of, of reservists, to be able to to keep up their commitment.

I would urge the government to give it full consideration.

17:45

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. As in the Committee stage, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As in the Committee stage, the noble Lord Lord Harlech and the noble Lady Baroness Fraser have brought forward important brought forward important amendments. There may not be the largest amendments, but we rely on largest amendments, but we rely on the reserves, and we've seen in the reserves, and we've seen in repeated SDR the importance of our reserves. One question I would therefore have of the Minister, because I think amendment 24, which talks about detriment on on grounds of membership of reserve forces. In theory, there shouldn't be any detriment to being in the in the reserves.

But could the noble Lady, the Minister, explain to the House whether she feels on His Majesty's Government feels that this amendment is unnecessary because sufficient legislation is in place to protect the rights of the reserves, and in particular, does the government feel that by bringing the whole of government within the purview of the Armed

17:48

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

them £380 a year for a corporal and on reserve salary of 35,000. That's £575. And for a lieutenant on £575. And for a lieutenant on £50,000 it would save them £1,087 a year. This means that all year. This means that all reservists get to keep more of their hard earned money, while offering our country their offering our country their commitment and support. My Lords, Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway Renowned, famously said, Hathaway Renowned, famously said, show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome. Currently, the incentives to join and remain in the reserves are nowhere near as pronounced as they ought to be.

If we are serious about increasing the size of the reserve forces, as my party certainly is, then we must fix and enhance these incentives. The outcome would definitely be positive. Indeed, as the Strategic Defence Review committed to increasing the size of the active reserves by 20%, should the government not be further considering improving the financial offer to reservists? On the amendments from my noble friend Lord Harlech, I do appreciate that these also attempt to target some of the incentives, particularly relating to the reservists employers. However, in my opinion, we should be targeting the financial incentives with costs that can be borne responsibly by the state, which could, for example, be funded by reinstating a two child benefit cap.

This is surely preferable to a policy that increases costs on businesses. Each of my noble friend's amendments might be acceptable on their own, and in a more favourable economic environment, we might be inclined to support them. However, with the tax burden at a post-war high, the Employers Rights Act further creating more red tape and the likelihood of further tax raids on the. In the upcoming budget, businesses, particularly SMEs, are already buckling under the cumulative pressure of life under a Labour government, as evidenced by further reduction in vacancy reported this very morning by the ONS. Given this while respecting the invaluable role that the reserve forces fulfil, I do think we should be doing everything businesses.

17:50

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to those who have contributed to this debate on this group, and I turn to the amendments in this group that have just been debated. Can I thank the noble Lord Lord Harlech for his amendment? But then, of course, the noble Lady Baroness Fraser, for putting forward the amendment and making its case. And I listened with care, and I'll try and address a couple of her points as we go through. And in fact, to that end, the mod, obviously, as you, as the noble Lady acknowledged, works closely with employers to promote the benefits of reservist companies and many actively recognise this.

Hence, as was mentioned, the silver and gold schemes and the noble Minister Lord Coaker did go into more detail, so I will just leave that there. But they have their place. Without doubt. There are over 9000 companies that are in fact, part of the employee recognition scheme that requires employers to have reserved positive policies in their workplace. We also have a number of existing statutory safeguards in place to ensure that the reserves are protected when we mobilise them. My Lords, we are not complacent. As global instability increases and the importance of our reserve forces continues to grow, we are committed to improving reservist readiness.

However, we believe this must be done in partnership with employers and industry, whose ongoing support remains vital to the future success of the reserves. And while I accept that some businesses, such as the noble Lady Baroness Fraser would welcome this amendment, I take the noble Lord Minto's point that there are problems with potential increasing costs on business as well, and for that reason, we therefore do not believe these amendments strike the right balance. And to the noble Lady Baroness Smith of Newnham to just directly address the points that she made, the government remains committed to ensuring reservists are supported and not unfairly disadvantaged.

The concern is not with the principle of supporting reservists, but with whether the the amendments are the right mechanism, the right legal mechanism, I should say. And the government believes employer engagement, covenant commitments, as was mentioned, and targeted support, are more appropriate and proportionate than creating a broad new employment status. And we feel that the amendment could create uncertainty for employers, particularly small and medium sized businesses. And to the noble Ladies Point specifically worry that they may make ordinary workplace decisions more vulnerable to tribunal claims, even where decisions are based on legitimate reserves. I'll now turn to amendment 25, which concerns compelling the Secretary of State to undertake a review into tax repayments for the first 30 days of reservists.

Lovely saying that service each year. Well, I recognise the intent behind it. I do not consider a statutory review necessary. The government keeps paying conditions under continuous review, and reservists already benefit from a generous package of important, is the government believes that making reserve pay tax free would also create a significant disparity with our regular personnel. Those of us, and there are maybe a couple in this chamber that, remember pay 2000 and introducing discrepancies and differential pay and the effect that it had in particular on the Royal Navy would, I think, want me to make this point emphatically.

We do not want to create a disparity, a disparity between regular and reserve personnel pay conditions in that. In this way I do, however, share the noble Baroness commitment to improving reserve recruitment. Our approach to recruitment retention is to improve the offer. So with that, my Lords, I beg to move.

17:54

Deputy Lord Speaker Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)

The question is an amendment 17 be agreed to? Many of that opinion be agreed to? Many of that opinion will say content. Content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have amendments 18 to 21. Baroness Antrobus move formally. En bloc. The question is. Amendments 18 to 21 be agreed to. As many as are in that opinion not content. The conten

17:55

Amendment:22 The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

Minto. >> My Lords. The House will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The House will not be surprised that myself and my noble friend, Lady Goldie, have retabled our amendments from Committee to remove clause 39 in schedule six from the Bill. As a short reminder, those provisions abolish the those provisions abolish the Reserve Forces and Cadets associations as currently constituted and replace them with a constituted and replace them with a single. I'm reading the right thing. Yeah I am, yeah, I thought. Forest Reserve and Cadet Association has currently constituted and replaced them with a single non-departmental public body, a quango with a far greater degree of control exercised directly by the Ministry of Defence.

My Lords, I was incredibly buoyed by the widespread support from around the House that this amendment received a committee in particular that this amendment received from the noble and gallant Lords Lord Craig of Radley, Lord Stirrup and Lord Dannatt. The noble Lords. Lord Moore of Etchingham Lord Faulks am unable. Friends Lord Swire, Lord Howe, Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie, and of course Lord de Mauley. Can I also say to the noble Baroness Ladysmith of Newnham, that her support and that of her party is extremely welcome. I even detected a hint of scepticism about the government's proposal from their own benches, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate for his intervention.

This support from diverse of corners was indeed indicative of both how strongly noble Lords felt about the value of reserves and cadet organisations, but also their commitment to the value of a level of self-determination. My Lords, it is clear from the strength of feeling in the House that the government have got this wrong. I am in no doubt that the noble or the Minister has only good intentions, but I am afraid that he is pursuing, whether at his own behest or that of the behest of the Civil Service, a course of action which will change the RFCA for the worse and risks causing lasting damage to a system that works so well.

The source of my eye is the government's insistence that they must seize control over the associations. For the sake of accountability, I am fully aware that the Sullivan Review identified weaknesses in the government of the RFCA, but an enormous amount of work has already been done to rectify those problems. And yet the government still intends to pursue reorganisation. It is as if the Mod is searching for a problem to justify their desire to exercise ultimate control over the associations. The government speaks of accountability, but I say accountability. To whom is it the accountability of the membership of the associations that the government is concerned about?

Is it for those volunteers, cadet leaders, reservists and staff who make the RFCA the enormous success that they are? Or is it to further the MoD's interests, which is why the government seeks these reforms. For if anyone thinks that creating yet another quango is going to improve accountability, either to those who really matter the reserves, the cadets and the membership, or indeed to the government itself, then I fear they may have spent the last few decades with their heads buried fairly deep in the sand. My Lords, if it is financial probity and government governance which the government is concerned about, then they have little to fear from retaining the current arrangements.

For example, as this is quite a good example, the Yorkshire and Humberside Association managed to negotiate the purchase of a new location for York Officer Training Corps for £2.85 million, down from the quoted price of £3 million. By contrast, the anticipated cost for the Ministry of Defence's plan for the relocation was £10 million because of the local connections and autonomy of the current arrangements, the Yorkshire and Humberside RFCA was able to save the public purse £7 million. The government says they are worried about a financial responsibility and accountability, but is. This demonstrates. A simple example demonstrates the RFCA are clearly more responsible and accountable than the Ministry of Defence could be.

I know if I were still in the commercial sector who I'd want on my side in negotiation, I should say, however, that I do appreciate the efforts of the noble Lord the Minister has gone to in trying to address some of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord de Mauley at committee, particularly welcome is amendment 39, which places the role of the Lord Lieutenant into primary legislation as opposed to the government's previous position of leaving governance arrangements solely to secondary legislation. Amendment 27 is also welcomed as it permits the chairs of regional councils to sit as representative members on the on the National RFCA board.

However, my Lords, it is evident that whilst the government has made some movement, they still intend to seize greater control over the associations through structural means. Of particular concern is the proposed new structure of the board. Amendment 26 increases the number of non-executive members from 5 to 10, and amendment 28 states that the number of non-executive members must be greater than the. Than. Than the number of executive and representative members combined. This definition is almost worth repeating. It is so unusual. But don't worry, I shan't, I shan't the. The effect of this government amendment is to place a cap on the number of representatives of the regional Councils that could sit on the National Board as the number of Representatives and executive members combined could not be more than the number of Mod appointed non-executive directors.

This could lead to a situation where there are actually no representative members appointed to the board at all. Surely that cannot be right. For example, if the Mod appoint four non-executive members, which for an organisation of this size would be a pretty standard number, there would be room for only one representative, since there are approximately three executive members on the board, including the Chief Executive Officer. While the Mod could now theoretically appoint up to ten non-executive members and therefore appoint all six of the permitted representatives, this would create a board of 20 people which, as anybody who has sat on corporate boards of almost any size will tell you, is absolutely ludicrous.

For comparison, the average size of the board of a FTSE 100 company is 9.9 directors. In fact, it would be so impractical that the Mod would never even countenance it. In short, the government has by by amendment 28, guaranteed complete control over the board and placed what I believe to be an unacceptable restriction on the representation of the membership of the RFCA. And in this regard, this concession is not actually a concession at all. My Lords, the nub of the issue is this there were governance and accountability. Accountability issues identified. Those problems were fixed, but the civil service will not be satisfied until they exercise complete control over the RFCA.

They can dress this up in as much bureaucratic Newspeak as they wish, but the fact remains that it is a wholly unnecessary and ultimately damaging reform. And for that reason, my Lords, clause 39 and schedule six should be struck from this bill. I beg to move.

18:03

Lord De Mauley (Conservative)

- -

Yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Amendment proposed leave out clause 39.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm sorry to hear that the noble Lord Lord Coaker was unwell and I was very grateful to him for his letter of the 13th of October last week, in which he set out a number of government amendments to the bill, including several on the RFCA element in clause 39 and schedule six. And, my Lords, I should mention my interest as chairman of the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations. I thank the noble Lord in particular in his absence, as did my noble friend Lord Minto, for agreeing to bring the Lord lieutenants back into primary legislation and for the establishment of a National Council.

He also said that arrangements would be made for up to six regional council chairs to be appointed as members of the RFCA board, and that they would be able to participate and vote, maintaining the historic links between defence and the regions. I'm very grateful that they will be able to participate fully and to vote. My Lords, my issue is with the little words up to in the context of the number of regional chairs to be appointed to the board. My noble friend Lord Minto referred to the importance of having six regional chairs out of our total of 13 regional regions represented on the board to represent them nationwide.

RFCA. That is because it would allow representation of each of the devolved administrations Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and would provide three representatives for England. That is, three out of its nine regional chairs, while Northern Ireland and Wales each would have its only chair permanently on the board and Scotland would have one of its two. England is by far the most populous of the four countries, being home to, according to Google, 85% of the population of the United Kingdom. So it would be ridiculous to suggest that England should not have half of all the regional chairs elements of the board.

That inevitably leads to a need for not less than six representatives of the regional chairs on the board. The number of the issue I have with the government's amendments, therefore, and the noble Baroness Sater Minister must not not think me ungrateful, because I appreciate they have come a long way. But the nub is in government amendment amendment 28, the effect of which is to make clause two two on page 135 of the bill read the number of executive members and representative members must be less than the number of non-executive members. My noble friend Lord Minto has explained how the Mod could arrange that in reality, therefore, no representative members sit on the board, although the.

The government have allowed themselves by amendment 26 to appoint up to ten non-executives. This is discretionary and it seems to me unlikely to happen both because it would create a large board which I do not think any of us would find very attractive. And because the Treasury would surely question payment to so many non-executives, but because the Bill still insists that they be paid. Compounding this in paragraph four, C in amendment 39, government amendment 39, where it says, but there shall be no more than six representative members at any time. My Lords, this has all come about because of a concern amongst officials that the regional chairs might somehow outvote the other board members and expose the organisation to unacceptable risk, something, of course none of us wants.

There are, however, so many reasons why this is unthinkable. Of the RFCA total annual spending of £120 million, for example, over 95% is tied down in payments for leases, rent rates, people costs, fixed contracts for it, property maintenance and so on, and in projects for which the business cases which have the approval of one of the single services. There's therefore literally no latitude for spending outside the set parameters. Furthermore, the chief executive. Furthermore, the chief executive being appointed by the department as the accounting officer can exercise his or her veto. If any board member is to propose any inappropriate action as set out in His Majesty's Treasury's own publication, Managing Public Money.

Which brings me to what is perhaps an even more important point, amendment 28, by suggesting that the executives, including the chief executive and the finance director, would gang up against the chairmen and non-executives, is completely absurd. You would be placing your entire trust in the non-executives who, albeit are appointed through the proper process. They are paid some, but by no means all of their income by you. But you won't trust the executives who are also appointed by you, and are even more heavily vetted and are entirely reliant on you for their pay package. This really is something which could only have arisen out of the thought process of a mad conspiracy theorist.

So I would be keen to see the back of amendment 28. While I warmly welcome my noble friend Earl Howe and Mythos. Amendment 39, a. Let us focus on the big picture. We are attempting either to create an effective Ndpb or to strengthen further. The current model, as in fact was suggested by the National Audit Office in a national organisation which stretches from the Outer Isles, Shetland and Orkney to Land's End and the Channel Islands, one that embraces the rich regional heritage of the United Kingdom. Why wouldn't one wish for appropriate regional representation on the board to provide that vital link between national strategies and policies and their implementation at local level, rather than dancing on a pinhead about some theoretical perception of risk?

To put that regional representation in doubt, as these government amendments do, flies in the face of Prime Minister Burnham's stated aim to push power down to the regions of the UK, giving members the impression that they might only have minimal representation on the national board because it is not in accordance with Cabinet Office and Treasury guidelines, as it might create financial and government risk. It's frankly nonsense. It is an insult to volunteers who readily give up their time at no cost to the taxpayer, because they understand the importance of the reserves and cadets, to the national effort, to resilience, to defence of the homeland, and who wish to serve and support.

They should be applauded, not treated as high risk vigilantes. Furthermore, there are plenty of checks and balances in the Treasury's own guidance. Managing public money chapter three and Defence Counsel letters of delegation to regional chairs to ensure that board members carry out the duties assigned to them in accordance with government guidelines. My Lords, a further matter that I've not today pressed by way of amendment is my suggestion, made in committee, that the detail of how the membership of the RFCA is to be selected should be set out in primary legislation. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, assure me that the draft regulation that the noble Lord Lord Coaker showed us, which did indeed, indeed set out the detail will indeed be brought before Parliament in substantially the form we have been shown.

18:11

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

Well. >> Just to make a few brief comments on on these group of amendments, and I do wish the noble Lord the Minister, well in his recovery, and hopefully he'll be back here in the not too distant future. But I always feel that I'm a reasonably balanced person when looking at some of these aspects. Others may not agree, but most most people will. So I'm always open to consideration of changes. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't contemplate supporting amendment 22, which to me is is almost a dead end and bringing us back to the status quo. But sometimes you have to have that knee jerk reaction, particularly when you see what else is in this group of amendments.

And to me, it's it's seriously shortchanging a group of people who really want to make a contribution, who are making a contribution. And what it's going to do is leave some areas disadvantaged, either the region of of England isn't going to have the representation that we feel it deserves. Or on the other hand, Northern Ireland, or maybe Scotland or maybe Wales won't have any representation whatsoever. Or it could be all of those. So I think that I'd have liked to see a much better proposal coming from government here that would allow me to support it.

But unfortunately, I'm in a situation where I don't particularly like amendment 22, but I feel under the circumstances, I'm probably going to have to support it because it's not giving that fair representation to the other regions that I see. So I would ask government maybe to, to look at this again, a have a reconsideration and give us something that that I can support. Otherwise, I'm going to have to go with amendment 22.

18:13

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I rise to support amendment 22. I should begin by amendment 22. I should begin by apologising for not speaking in the earlier stages of the bill, and I also should declare my interests. I'm the honorary Colonel of I'm the honorary Colonel of Outreach, and I have also been asked to help. Interview for the Advisory Assessment Panel for the Advisory Assessment Panel for the appointment of the chair of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. My Lords, I think that we all recognise the value of the RFCA and this has been laid out well by others, and I don't intend to repeat what's gone before.

There is a well-used phrase if it ain't broke, don't fix it, which I think really applies here, as this involves the duties of the Lord. Lieutenant, my first question is whether the palace has actually been consulted on this reorganisation. I do not propose to go lay out all the arguments, as others have done far more eloquently than I could. However, there is a real concern that this reorganisation will damage the voluntary ethos of the Association. The proposed reorganisation will appoint non-military independent directors, and this will remove the incentives for military and ex-military volunteers to remain involved.

And they add so much to this organisation. So by abolishing the 13 regional organisations, it cuts across the regional local connections that are so incredibly important. As we've already heard from others, especially at this time when we're told to be war ready. The RFCA has an incredibly valuable role to play. Please do not let us reorganise something that works perfectly well. Now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

let's leave it alone to continue its excellent work. Yeah. Like many.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like many. Other members, I wish to wish a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Other members, I wish to wish a recovery for Lord Coaker, and. I never. Either convened or attended a ministerial meeting, which he convened before the recess. With so

18:15

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

many civil servants present, there were a few of us there. There was a mini mass meeting, and it was very kind of him to bring them along, and they were all there for all the different, to answer all the different questions. But they also say that one of the first things a politician must learn is how to count. Now, if we look at amendments 26 and 28, it seems to me that we can't count because on the one hand, the Minister said, this is what I think we should do. We should open things up. We realise that we have to get regional representation.

But then when this thing is brought before us and dangled before us, we think we've got a solution here. But then amendment 28 potentially takes it away. So it's not specific that it would be taken away. But when you use the phrase in legislation, we may appoint, we may appoint. So that is the fundamental weakness. Now, I do not believe that it's impossible for the Minister to resolve that, and I think it could easily be resolved by Third Reading, and I hope it will be resolved by Third Reading, because I think most people want the same outcome.

We shouldn't be arguing over this because it's in our national interest. But I do have to say that the potential. And don't forget, the current government might we don't know. We could have another government using this legislation. That would take a totally different view. And we have to look at the alternatives going forward. There's a way to fix this. This Lord de Mauley rightly said, you've got all these regions, England, 85% of the national population, nine regions. We can't have every region represented. We know that. Otherwise the board would be far too unwieldy. And as Earl of Minto pointed out.

Big companies, ten people max, even our own committees are limited to 11 or 12. So if we shouldn't be therefore asking people to just don't do as we do, do as we say. So I would appeal to the Minister to take this back. It can be resolved. I'm quite sure I don't see any threat. I don't think there's going to be a coup amongst the the members of a board that will cause any destruction for the government. We should be all on the same page here, and let us hope it can be resolved. I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To support amendment 22 and believe very firmly that schedule believe very firmly that schedule six should be removed from from this bill. Frankly, my Lords, if ever there was a problem looking ever there was a problem looking for a solution or solution, looking for a problem, it is. It is this for a problem, it is. It is this one. Noble Lords pointed out the. The errors in this. And I think the fundamental issue is, is moving fundamental issue is, is moving away from the volunteer ethos. That is what underpins the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

And

18:18

I think if we are to start moving to paid officials, it seriously undermines. And we will see. We

18:18

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

undermines. And we will see. We will lose those volunteers almost immediately. So, my Lords, I really

18:18

immediately. So, my Lords, I really do feel that section schedule six must be removed from from this bill. There are, in my view, many other noble Lords will take their share with me many issues that need to be with me many issues that need to be sorted out in defence, particularly at this time of growing national crisis. But frankly, tinkering with the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, their structure and their organisation is definitely not one of them.

18:18

Lord Dannatt (Crossbench)

- -

Yeah, yeah. stand up, to knock a nail that is almost invisible out of sight. But I'm going to because when I was vice chief, I led the Cameron

18:18

Lord Houghton of Richmond (Crossbench)

- -

review on reserves, future reserves 2020. And when I stood down as 2020. And when I stood down as being CDs, I became the president of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for 3 or 4 years. And those two roles or those two activities bring me a close understanding of and familiarity with the very localised and nuanced natures of reserve and cadet issues, natures of reserve and cadet issues, and the remarkable and freely given service of prominent figures locally. More recently, in the latest Strategic Defence Review, it's emphasised the need for a whole of society approach to national defence, one which fully involves local communities and civil societies in national resilience.

And then it was touched on by Lord de Mauley. More recently. Still, the Prime Minister's barnstorming conference speech spoke of the need to rewire the UK system to devolve responsibility by default to empower every postcode to champion stronger public control, to strip away unnecessary centralised regulation and overwatch. So I do wonder, has the Prime Minister read this bill? Does he realise the degree in which it's going against every principle? He stated in this speech that rocked the nation? The Bill establishes or aspires to establish an RFCA board, an ND PB, which enjoys a permanent majority of funded non-executives and under certain scenarios, the board construct can eliminate any local representation at all.

I started to wonder whether or not this was an act of malfeasance, which I had to check in the dictionary, but I just think actually, it's a up of drafting, because one of the intended statements after one of the amendments completely inverts the purpose of the amendment. But all I do say, and I say it from my experience of my the time I've had with reserves is to requote the lady do not fix what isn't broken. It is absolutely unnecessary. Vote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to get rid of clause 39. Me here. My Lords, I'm just rising briefly because I'd like the noble briefly because I'd like the noble Lady, the Minister, to. I'm in a sense of confusion with these sense of confusion with these amendments, and I'd like her to hopefully help me out on this. At hopefully help me out on this. At Committee stage. I supported the removal of this clause, and I. removal of this clause, and I. Because I felt that the RFCA RFCA, as other noble Lords have said, are rooted in their communities. And yes, while defence is reserved, many of the institutions and the community organisations, whether it's employers or local government, whatever it is.

Are, are, are not, are devolved matters. And so my question to the noble Lord Coaker was where where are the devolved nations as Lord Maude Lord Empey referred to? Where are where is their input in this new body? And, you know, I'm going to say I'm going to get fed up saying it, I think, in this chamber, because Scotland and Ireland are not just other regions of England, despite

18:22

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)

- -

the global population things. And I take my noble friends point, but but when I asked the noble Lord but when I asked the noble Lord Coaker, he said to me that he would, you know, they're all part of the regulations. They're in draft form at the moment, and he'll share them. And I thank him very much for sharing them. And I have gone through them. And I had asked the question, where are the devolved question, where are the devolved nations? And and those reserved, those devolved matters being fed through to this new national board. And I cannot in any way, reading through the draft regulations, see where that happens.

And I was assured that these things will be sorted out by the regulations. But at the moment they're not. So I remain confused, and therefore I support my noble friends with amendment 22, and I hope maybe the noble Lady, the Minister, will make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me not confused. Lord Sewell I rise to. Declare two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Interests to make one very simple point. I am the current president of the Reserves and president of the Reserves and cadets appointed instead of Field Marshal the Lord Houghton. And I am sitting currently in your Lordships House on the Committee for National Resilience. And my point is very simple, my Lords, we need national

18:23

resilience more than ever. We get that national resilience by connecting ourselves to our own connecting ourselves to our own society. That connection comes through His Majesty to His Majesty's Lord lieutenants, and in Majesty's Lord lieutenants, and in the case of mobilisation that falls to the reserve forces and cadets to the reserve forces and cadets associations. When we have a moment of serious conflict, we need our reserve forces. That's what saved reserve forces. That's what saved us in two world wars. We need them again, and we need to grow them. So the simple message is we need to do all we can to make them as strong as possible, as part of our national resilience.

18:24

Lord Peach (Crossbench)

- -

Lord Snape I am.

18:24

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

going to repeat what I said then. I have one simple point. I wondered whether there was some deep and whether there was some deep and mysterious legal reason for the government's desire to reorganise the reserves, but I was reassured in no uncertain terms by Lord Coker, that there is no legal reason for this move. So it follows that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a question of political choice. And, my Lords, it's a very bad choice. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, the noble Lord Minto stole my thunder from these benches stole my thunder from these benches right at the start of this group of amendments, when he thanked me and amendments, when he thanked me and my benches for the support we were giving on the issue of Reserve giving on the issue of Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, this has been, by the standards of this particular bill, a long debate, and I don't intend to detain the House for more than 2 or 3 sentences, because my Lords Clause 39 and I can understand why the noble Lord Earl of Minto was slightly confused, because the original version of the bill, its clause 38.

So I spent a bit of time trying to work out what we were talking about. And then I discovered, no, no, it's now changed its numbering, but it hasn't changed its content and it hasn't become any better. And the particularly pernicious bit isn't actually what's in. I would suggest clause 39, it's schedule six to which it refers, which is actually where most of the really serious

18:25

issues are. I have not heard across the chamber anybody who sees a good the chamber anybody who sees a good reason to abolish the current situation. We've already heard from situation. We've already heard from the noble Lord Fox that there is no legal reason to do so. There is legal reason to do so. There is clearly no military reason to do so. And in terms of our national security and national resilience, security and national resilience, there seems to be no desirability to do so. So for those reasons, from these benches, we will be supporting amendment 22.

18:26

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, as I mentioned in my opening comments, I've been struck by the support for this amendment by the support for this amendment from all sides of the chamber, and that's much appreciated. The noble Baroness, the Minister, who herself has given distinguished service to this country in the RAF, cannot be blind to all unmoved by the strength of feeling in this House about this issue, as to why their Lordships feel so strongly. The noble Baroness is an able and respected advocate for our armed forces, and I ask her to convey this message she has heard so forcibly today to the Department.

I very much hope.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies. I think it's probably the secret thing means we should hear from the Minister in response hear from the Minister in response to the constitutional debate. And as you did, open open the debate as it's your amendment. Noble Lords amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. It's nice to be looked after. Thank you for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for. All of the noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords and noble Ladies

18:27

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

contributions, and I have listened to them carefully, as I did in previous stages of the Bill. I'll previous stages of the Bill. I'll do my best to answer the points that have been made. First off, most broadly, this debate is not about whether the RFCA should continue. They should. This government is fully committed to their future. There is no conspiracy. The question is whether conspiracy. The question is whether an organisation enters its second century should continue to operate through the government's arrangements designed for 1908, or through a model fit for the defence challenges of the 2030s and beyond.

We know the risks, support our reserve and cadet forces, steward a substantial estate and overseas significant public expenditure. I'll come back to this point, and those responsibilities have grown significantly, but the governance framework has not kept pace. A proud history is a reason to preserve and modernise the RFCA is not a reason to exempt them from change. And part of my PhD was actually on the establishment of the first Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons, which. Of note, although the first two were created in London, the second two were created in Birmingham, Glasgow and Edinburgh. So very regional, I would suggest, for an early Royal Air Force.

The case for reform rests squarely on the findings of three reviews, and I make this point because there's been quite a lot of questions from your Lordships House about why the need for this. The reviews identified fragmented accountability, inconsistent governance arrangements, and an absence of clear responsibility for public money. Those findings were not a criticism of the dedicated people who serve the RFCA. To operate. So the NFB is not the objective, it's the solution. It creates a single accountable organization, a clear chain of responsibility, independent oversight, and proper stewardship of public funds, as the government should ensure happens.

Without governance reform, the system cannot be fixed and secured for the future. The alternative cannot be the status quo, and I know many have made the case for that. As the noble Minister, Lord Coaker, set out, the status quo has already been judged inadequate by three public reviews. So, and also, the NDP predicts rather than threatens the RFC model RCA model, because with the amendments put forward, we are keen and committed to preserving regional footprint, local knowledge, community engagement and the volunteering ethos that have always been its great strength, its strengths. But this move, as I've sort of alluded to already to an Ndpb, is not a new proposal of this government.

The decision to pursue the model was taken under the previous government following the Sullivan review, and work to implement it has been work to implement it has been underway for a number of years. The. The opposition, when in government, had set out in this House that the existing arrangements created a situation where decisions on public money could be taken by individuals who are not accountable to the Ministry of Defence's Permanent Secretary. And. And to a specific point by the noble Lord Minto early on about the Yorkshire and Humber Rfca this. That situation would not change that.

Not to do with the Ndpb. I just want to reassure him. And so the government agrees with the opposition's position under the Sullivan Review. Indeed, successive Rfca annual reports reflect an expectation that the organisation would transfer to an Ndpb and a commitment to working with defence to make that transition successful. And the 20 2021 Annual Report RCA Annual Report stated the transition to an NGB is one that we should embrace, confident that the critical role of regional membership would be reflected in the future governance structure. This reform is not a rejection of the Rfca proud history.

It is how we ensure their continued success in the decades ahead. This is not change for its own sake. As has been alluded to in several of my noble Lords and noble Ladies comments and debate, it is governance reform required to preserve the strengths, address weaknesses that successive reviews have identified, and ensure the organisation remains fit for the future. Throughout the passage of the Bill, considerable attention has rightly been given to the future of the Reserve Forces and Cadets associations and how the strengths of the existing regional structure can be preserved. And I pay tribute to noble Lord Minto for listing the contribution.

I was going to list some of them myself. I was busy taking them off as you went through. I'm pretty sure you caught everybody, but I did want to acknowledge just how much interest has been shown in this Lordships House about this issue, and I have read through again, having sat on these benches in Committee stage, I've read through again all comments, so I take them firmly to heart in discussions with the Rfca, its members of this House and other stakeholders. A consistent theme has emerged the importance of ensuring that strong regional voices continue to play a meaningful role within the future organisation.

The government gets this. So the amendments before the House seek to respond to these concerns. Their central purpose is to ensure that the future Rfca retains a strong regional dimension and continues to benefit from local knowledge, community connections and experience. And. To my the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. You know the amendments were intended to address these points. I take all of his points, but I, I, I, the, the, the movement, and particularly that Lord Coaker has broached over the last few weeks, is to do as much as possible to address the concerns raised.

Let me just turn to the amendments. First, they strengthen provision for regional councils by placing greater clarity in the legislation about their leadership and composition. They ensure each regional council will have its own chair and formal arrangements for the appointments of presidents and vice presidents. In doing so, the amendments recognise the long standing and important role that those on the ground have played in support of the work of the stars and for generations. As has been raised by several of my noble Lords, Lord lieutenants have provided a valued link between defence, civic society and local communities across every part of the United Kingdom.

The amendments, therefore, do provide for the presidents of the Regional Council to be an appropriate Lord Lieutenant, wherever one is available, to serve in that capacity. And I would just like briefly here to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord peach, about the importance of our reserves being as strong as possible. As part of national resilience, I have spoken in this House, in this chamber, and I continue to support the work that he is doing. Sorry the noble Lord. Lord is doing on his committee and in his other endeavours. And we, I hope, will continue to work together on that important point.

The reserve forces are central, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, and have been in previous conflicts. Secondly, the amendments allow for a number of regional Council chairs to become representative members of the Rfca, ensuring regional perspectives can be brought into discussions at the national level. It may be helpful if I also address how those government. Those arrangements will be implemented in practice. The government's intention is that all regional councils should continue to have a strong voice, including through the representative member arrangements. However, it will be important to ensure that the board is established in a way that maintains the governance safeguards expected of a modern public body, including a majority of non-executive members.

Now, if I could briefly address a few points around this area to Lord Elliot on the representation from Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland representative will be one of six regional chairs and the devolved nations will be represented to the noble Lady, Baroness Fraser's Point. And I'm reassured that the amendment 40 is, is is devised in order to ensure that that takes place. Now, going back to the make up of the board. As a consequence, the appointment of representative members may need to proceed. So representative members, as in regional representatives, may need to proceed alongside the recruitment of non-executive directors as the new body is established.

In practice, this may mean building up the number of representative members incrementally during the transition period, rather than appointing all representative members on day one. So when we go to this magic number of six, no. As clause 39 A refers to no more than and no fewer, the Rfca could not operate as a full board until the six regional chairs and required Neds were appointed. If the amendment was passed in practice this may. I've covered that. Points. I apologise. That approach is not intended to diminish regional representation. Rather, it is a practical consequence of establishing the new organisation on a sound governance footing from the outset, and I would like to convince Minto, but also Lord de Mauley, that I am, I promise, not a conspiracy theorist, but clearly people would never know if they were, would they?

So perhaps that needs looking at. We'll take other people's advice and a point I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, because he brought up the payment issue which I know that Lord the noble Minister, Lord coca, covered. And he made the point that at the top of voluntary organisations all around the the country, there are people, including board members, who are remunerated and we would not expect them to be able to do that job of work without remuneration. I want to emphasise that the noble Minister, Lord coca, is extremely adamant on that point and would want me to to revisit that just briefly.

So the government's objective remains clear to ensure the strong regional voices are represented within the future Rfca, while maintaining independent oversight and accountability arrangements that Parliament would rightly expect of a national body. Thirdly, the amendments establish a National council bringing together the chairs of regional councils. In fact, I've covered this point to some extent. The intention is to create a formal forum through which regional experience, advice and expertise can inform the work of the organisation, help maintain strong links between the centre and the regions. There is also a recognition in the amendments that regional councils have long played an important role in providing advice and assistance on matters affecting their local areas.

Accordingly, provision is made for regulations to confer appropriate advisory functions on regional councils and, where appropriate, on the National Council. My Lords, these amendments demonstrate that modernisation need not come at the expense of tradition, and nor would I wish to see that I can reassure my Lordships House. They preserve the regional identity, local relationships and civic leadership that have long underpinned the success of our Fcas. As we have debated in earlier stages of the Bill, while supporting clearer accountability and stronger governance. I am confident that these amendments therefore strike the right balance between maintaining valued local connections, ensuring an effective and accountable organisation for the future.

I hope, but I appreciate all the comments that have made that amendments would reassure noble Lords, the Fcas and their many supporters that the future organisation will continue to draw strength from the government and the the regions, and the government is firmly committed to that principle, and it serves us well while being equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the years ahead. My Lord, firstly, allow me to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, firstly, allow me to apologise for getting carried away earlier so I won't. I'll just carry earlier so I won't. I'll just carry earlier so I won't. I'll just carry on. If I could ask. If, if if I could humbly ask the noble Baroness. could humbly ask the noble Baroness. As an able and respected advocate for our armed forces, and I ask her to convey the message that she's heard so forcibly to today, from this House back to the Department. I very much hope that the government realises the area of the errors of their way, and that should the House decide to remove clause 39 and schedule six from the Bill today, they do not seek to continue with this folly.

When the bill goes back to the other place. My Lords, the course of action the government is pursuing here is is not far off. Using a wrecking ball as some form of construction tool, they appear to want to abolish the voluntary ethos of the reserves, and cadets sweep away their independence and seize control of the associations that have done so much for our cadets and reserves over many generations, and to this

18:42

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

nation's abiding gratitude, I hesitate to leave your Lordships of hesitate to leave your Lordships of the warning. But good things once gone seldom, seldom return. The Reserve Forces and Cadets Association are, as we've heard from almost throughout today, from almost throughout today, undoubtedly a very good thing indeed. We would be doing our nation a great disservice if we nation a great disservice if we ended up disbanding them. I would like to test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. Well, said I. To clarify, amendment 22 moved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To clarify, amendment 22 moved formally. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. As many amendment 22 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content, content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. Not consent. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House

18:42

Division

when voting is open. Thank you. Question Question is Question is that Question is that this Question is that this motion Question is that this motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content. The contrary not contents. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment 22.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

20.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted. Contents 243 not content. 168 so Amendment Amendment 23 Amendment 23 Lord Harlech not moved. Amendment 24 Lord Harlech not moved. Amendment 25 Baroness Goldie not moved. Lemon 26. Lord Coker entrance not moved. Are there a series of amendments? The government wish not to move en bloc 26 as a consequence of that decision, 26 to 26 to to to 39. The question is that amendment 26 to 39 do you agree to unblock as many that have been not. Sorry. It's a complicated night. Number 26 to 39 are not moved en bloc.

Which brings me to amendment 39. We've dealt with. That means I can't move. I can't call a House amendment 39 A, because it's an amendment to something that the government has not moved. Amendment 40 not moved. Amendment 41 not moved and 42 not moved. Amendment 43 Baroness Goldie not moved. And is that. Amendment? Let's nobody be confused. Back to amendment 43, which is amendment that is to be moved, is it? Amendment moved. Leave out schedule six which is consequential to the government therefore accepts. Question is that amendment agreed to, as I say, content to contrary, not content.

The contents have it. So we come to 44 Lord Coker, not known more formally. Amendment 44. After clause 43 insert the new clause set out on the master list. Question is that amendment be agreed to as many that in the say content is contrary, not content the contents have it. Amendment 43. Sorry. 45 Lord. More formally, that clause 43 insert the new clause set out in the partial list. Question is that amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 46 move formally.

Article 43 insert the nuclear clause set out on the partial list. Question is that amendment be agreed to as many that has been, say, content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 47. Lord Bishop of Norwich not move.

18:58

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

discussions, because there remains some key issues that are important to us, and I hope that Lady Antrobus will be able to help with Antrobus will be able to help with some answers. At Committee stage, a number of noble Lords asked the Minister for clarification on how it was possible for the US Air Force to ask UK police officers to transfer serious sexual cases allegedly committed by the US servicemen on British soil out of the UK justice system and into the US system, with no reference to senior personnel either in the police or the CPS, and without any reference to the Ministry of Justice.

Lord Coker's letter of the 25th of September helpfully confirms that there are no separate bilateral agreements of legal provisions that determine the allocation of criminal jurisdiction between the UK and the USA, other than the NATO Status of Forces Sofa Agreement 1951. My Lords, this is reassuring. It's always concerning to see in legislation, in this case the Visiting Forces Act 1952, that such agreements could be kept confidential. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for being able to confirm that there are no such agreements. However, this doesn't remove concerns that such decisions in a number of cases are being taken at a very local level and without any reference either to senior CPS or MoJ personnel.

It's even more worrying that there appears to be absolutely no data collected on such cases. Hence my amendment 50. So can I ask the Minister if she feels that the letter from the College of Policing dated the 15th of July, to all chief constables, which sets out the need to strengthen the arrangements and processes for cases like this. However, that letter also uses phrases like chief constables may wish to consider practical guidance and operating procedures. It's not direction. It means that a thousand flowers may bloom. My Lords, this is a very light touch approach and it doesn't define the level of police, let alone CPS decision making in such cases.

And it's clear that these cases have sensitivities beyond the actual incident between the victim and the alleged offender. Diplomatic relations are important, as well as divergence between our legal systems and support mechanisms for victims, which are local. Police force may not know. And that's why my amendment goes on to say that no decision on such cases can be made without the agreement of the chief police officer of the relevant police forces and the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the relevant CP service area, and they must agree formally that the transfer is appropriate under the Visiting Forces Act 1952.

Now, it is clear to many people that the transfer of recent cases that we debated earlier in this bill are not, and the system needs to change, but our justice system needs to know about how many cases and who is dealing with them. So my amendment sets out how that data should be collected and then sent to the DPP, the Secretary of State. And because of the public concerns about these cases, shouldn't the Mod also report to Parliament on the annual data relating to these cases? Indeed, I think it's now clear to everyone who has been involved in this debate and reread the Visiting Forces Act 1952, that not one of the recent cases highlighted by the Guardian should have been transferred to the US military justice system.

Serious sexual crimes are excluded in that act. So will the noble Lord. Lady, the Minister, agree to collecting data on these cases and that there should be a change of decision on these cases, ensuring no ad hoc transfers happen in the future. Lady Bennett's agreement 51 sets out the qualifying sexual offences where there are restrictions on relinquishing of jurisdiction would apply, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to my amendments on this and to hers. Finally, my Lords, Amendment 56, in the name of Lady Goldie. I am concerned about this amendment at two levels.

Firstly, this application of the European Convention of Human Rights, even if only for a specific and narrow issue, is complex. As we've debated in this House before, and I know the noble Lady Goldie is concerned about the possible abuse of cases under human rights law. However, disapplication for any overseas deployment, many of which are not active war zones, where I think most of the actual cases of lawfare have come from, is a very broad brush that might produce unintended consequences, is an extreme example of that might be if a future government decided to replicate the actions of the current US Defense Department at the moment where women, ethnic minorities and LGBT military are having their jobs curtailed, including deployment or removed because there is no human rights protection in the same way that we have here.

This has already happened to very senior military who have outstanding careers in America. My second example reminds your Lordships House that families of soldiers who died in the unsafe snatch Land Rovers, known as mobile coffins in Iraq, were able to use the European Court of Human Rights to win. Excuse me. Win their cases against the Ministry of Defence. Article two the right to life puts a duty on the Mod to provide suitable equipment to keep soldiers safe. It would be dreadful if our servicemen and women lost that protection. My Lords, returning to my amendment 49, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I couldn't quite hear the noble Lady. She's after clause 43 and certainly following clause visiting forces agreements. The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the amendment be agreed to. So great pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, on noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, on this group of amendments, most of which refer to the cases of

19:05

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

which refer to the cases of assaults on British women by US military, which we canvassed extensively at committee. Horrific cases which your Lordships House. I think I could fairly say look horrified about. Absolutely rightly. I'm pleased to attach my name to amendment 50 from the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton. And I think it's very clear that what we're talking about here, and it's something that I very much hope we might hear from the noble Lady, the Minister, the government, acknowledging that this is something that needs to happen, that we need to know how big the scale of this problem is.

We only know about the problem at all because of quite extensive, no doubt expensive, journalistic work by the Guardian. And I hear tell that there are actually a number of further cases which are likely to emerge in the near future, including one case where the US military did not inform the UK police at all. So therefore, this is something we need to keep track of, which is what the noble Lady, Baroness Britain's, has done. Now some of this information was uncovered using using Freedom of Information requests, but that doesn't always produce a result and is again reliant on individual initiative which we should not be relying upon.

And I think the point made by the noble Lady about the need for reporting to Parliament so that Parliament actually knows what's happening here is absolutely crucial. I think it's also interesting, the final subclause of the amendment, that the decision does not take effect until the Secretary of State has reviewed and approved. It is, I think, absolutely crucial. We need to see serious political responsibility taken for any decision that denies a British victim of serious sexual crime, the protection of the British courts, and any any person who is found to be a criminal that they receive what what the British state, the British government, the British people regard as an appropriate punishment.

This is not something I believe, that should be handed over pretty well practically ever. I cannot see any arguments for that. But I come now to amendment 51, which the noble Lady, Baroness Britain kindly backed, and this is bringing back the amendments that I had at committee, because I'm afraid the insurances we had from the noble Lord. Lord Coker, then, did not address the fundamental problem of the need for stronger safeguards. The existence of legislation is not enough if it's failing to protect victims in practice now, the noble Lady, Baroness Brittan, referred to the letter from the chair of the National Police Chiefs.

But, as the noble Lady said, this is only guidance. Please think about doing this and we know how much pressure our police forces are under in terms of resources. And obviously, if you do not react to that letter, there is no obvious penalty or action to be taken in response to it. Now, the Minister also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service guidance, but guidance alone is not a sufficient safeguard, particularly when questions remain about how the existing arrangements have been interpreted and applied. The approach should start from a clear principle the U-shaped UK should retain primary jurisdiction over alleged offences committed here against victims, particularly, or perhaps not solely those with no connection to the visiting forces.

There has to be clear justification for any departure from that principle. Under very narrowly defined circumstances, it should not appear to start from the circumstances in which a Foreign Service court has primary distinction. Jurisdiction, then explain why the UK does not. The presumption should be that the UK retains responsibility unless there is a compelling and legally justified reason otherwise, and we should also be very cautious about treating notifications of victims as a sufficient safeguard. As we canvassed extensively at committee, what victims are told, what they understand, the pressure they're under, the shock and suffering they've been through does not necessarily equip them to be able to make a reasonable judgment of what of what they really want to happen, or what they might, on reflection, have wanted to happen.

Now the government has, I will identify, acknowledged the seriousness of the cases that have brought this issue to our attention. And I appreciate the fact that there has been desire from the government to see a review, but identifying lessons and issuing guidance, and not the same as clear legislation. If the government agrees that jurisdiction should only be ceded when absolutely appropriate, why is it unwilling to put the independent decision at the heart of the process? So that concludes my comments on Baroness Britain and my amendments. I will just say, probably to no surprise, at the House at all, that the Greens are against amendment 56.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak to amendment 56, which, rather confusingly, appears to be in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confusingly, appears to be in this promise. To you, I will. Spare the House a reprise of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spare the House a reprise of what I'm going to say. The amendment is, in fact similar to amendment is, in fact similar to one debated at committee, and it's concerned with lawfare, the danger concerned with lawfare, the danger that our troops, whether cadets, reserves or regulars, face not from adversaries on the battlefield, but from lawyers and the dead hand of the law. I should begin by making it clear that I'm not for a moment suggesting that our troops should

19:10

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

operate in a law free zone. The amendment makes it clear that they amendment makes it clear that they should and always will be subject to the law of armed conflict. But to the law of armed conflict. But the concern arises from the E, C, H and its incorporation. In our own and its incorporation. In our own Human Rights Act. We cannot amend the E, c, h, and as a matter of choice, we have legislate legislated to take account of Strasbourg jurisprudence. Now, in practice this means that we almost always follow the jurisprudence of the European Court in Strasbourg.

At Committee stage I referred to some of the decisions there and here that have left our troops inappropriately constrained by the law as being one, and Smith versus the Ministry of Defence, in fact, referred to obliquely by the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, is another that unfortunately had the effect essentially eroding the concept of combat immunity, which was well established in our common law. The incursion of law into military operations has left our troops in an embarrassing position with some of our allies. Because of legal advice, they can be sidelined and accused of something called legal freeloading.

Accidents happen in war. Actions taken in the heat of battle may be regarded as excessive when studied by judges in the calm of the courtroom, particularly when viewed through the prism of that slippery word proportionality. For some time, Policy Exchange has highlighted this particular problem, beginning with Tom Tugendhat s paper The Fog of Law. What this amendment does is to provide a carve out from the Human Rights Act for our troops when they are engaged in overseas operations. Some of the persecution of our troops by the likes of Phil Shiner for events in Afghanistan or Iraq, not obviously.

European theatres of war would have been avoided had this amendment been part of the law. When I addressed your Lordships House at committee, the noble Lord, Lord Coker, said he found my remarks incomprehensible. I will try and be a little clearer today for the benefit of the noble Lady who is in his place. I think the noble Lords point was that it was no good amending the Human Rights Act, which we are entitled to do as a sovereign legislature, because litigants can always take their cases to Strasbourg. I don't disagree with that. But we are entitled to amend our domestic law.

How Strasbourg would respond is not always easy to predict. There is considerable respect there for our national courts. I'm clear on that. Having visited Strasbourg and spoken to judges there. Furthermore, the convention is a living instrument and the court is perfectly capable of changing course, so that while the noble Lord was right, it does not relieve us of the task of improving our law and giving our armed forces better protection. Noble Lords will be aware that it has always been open to a country to derogate from the convention in times of war. See article 15.

The amendment elevates the word may to must. This is a change at domestic level, unfortunately justified by experience. But it was the likelihood of our troops being engaged in military operations has increased and is increasing. We should provide our troops with adequate legal protection. I do hope those noble Lords who wish to remain in the ECHR will recognise that this amendment does not represent a dilution of adherence to the ECHR, the HRA or Europe more generally, it reflects the fact that even the best laws need amendment from time to time, and I am rather more interested in the fate of our troops than an overzealous adherence to the ever elusive concept of human rights.

I rise to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I obviously speak as a barrister practising in human rights field and a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is clear that the convention signed by the Contracting Parties in 1952, provided in its first article as follows the high contracting parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in section one of this convention.

The only reason that our forces have been considered to be subject to the convention when acting in the Middle East or in Afghanistan, is by reason of expansion caused by

19:16

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

decisions of the court in Strasbourg, which have then been applied domestically. As the noble applied domestically. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes said in Al-sakakini and in the Smith Al-sakakini and in the Smith decision, this is a misstep that the court has taken and in my submission, removing the submission, removing the opportunity to bring domestic proceedings by amending the Human Rights Act in relation to the actions of our forces overseas, would be a proportionate and appropriate step and stop this fog of law occurring in the operations of British forces overseas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to support my noble friend Baroness Brinton in the amendments she moved so effectively. There is some confusion and the There is some confusion and the reason why noble Lords have been moving around the chamber. That amendment 56, which has not amendment 56, which has not formally been moved yet by the noble Lord Minto, appears to be in noble Lord Minto, appears to be in two groups. This group and the next group.

So, yes, the government.

19:17

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Apologies. rather than the next group. So please continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. So the amendment is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. So the amendment is an amendment 56. If it had been very narrowly painted as something very narrowly painted as something that might have been in the case of that might have been in the case of war, in the case of active engagement, but it's very broadly engagement, but it's very broadly written and as such is not something that these benches could possibly support. And I'm going a step further than most of my colleagues would go, who would say there should be at no point any derogations to the ECHR. But, my Lords, there have been cases where lawfare may have got in the way.

But the amendment as proposed, is far too general, and from these benches we will not be supporting it.

19:18

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I set out at committee why these benches cannot support why these benches cannot support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and Lady Bennet. And as this is. Report, I Bennet. And as this is. Report, I have no further comments to add. My noble friend Lady Goldie and I have retabled our amendment 56, as it is the firm view of our party that the. However well intended, has. Through the ever expansive jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court, mutated into an instrument that is actively opposed to our national interest at a time where it is widely acknowledged that Britain faces the most significant threats to our security and safety in decades, and where politicians of all parties are frequently repeating the phrase national security as the first duty of government, how can it be right that those who we ask to serve and face up to real danger on all of our behalf, continue to face the possibility of being hauled before courts for simply doing their job?

None of us has an issue with the words as written down in the convention all those years ago. The issue lies with the application of the convention and expansion of its interpretation. My noble friend Lady Goldie mentioned at committee the Allegheny ruling in 2011, which is just one such example of this ever more expansive, expansive application. Noble Lords will be aware of lots of other such vexatious examples. My Lords, a committee, the noble Lord. The Minister said the argument the government put forward is that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not prevent the application of the ECR.

I appreciate that and indeed I agree. I know that so long as we remain a party to the European Convention, domestic legislation cannot remove the application of the convention. But, my Lords, this is not what I'm arguing here. What I am saying. And the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, expressed this point with customary clarity and at. Committee, and indeed today, is that the Human Rights Act permits a person to bring proceedings against our armed forces relating to overseas operation in reliance upon the convention rights in our domestic courts. This is a situation that my amendment attempts to rectify by removing the domestic remedy of the Human Rights Act, but most importantly, importantly, only in connection with the actions of our Armed forces forces personnel when deployed by government on overseas operations.

This would not solve the whole problem, and I do not claim it to be a silver bullet. However, short of leaving the ECHR entirely, which will be ultimate preference from these benches, the solution offered by amendment 56, it must be seen as the next best option. I shall reiterate, because it is an important point that I do not wish to give our armed forces blanket immunity. None of us wishes to see British soldiers engaged in looting, deliberate mistreatment of prisoners of war or sexual violence. Those remain crimes and they must be prosecuted. Importantly, our armed forces would not want complete immunity either.

They are taught to hold themselves to the highest standards, and they would expect us to continue to do so. That is why we have included in this amendment a declaratory subsection explicitly stating that British troops deployed on overseas operations remain bound by the law of armed conflict. I appreciate this has no legal effect because they remain bound by that law regardless, but it is there to ensure the fact is put beyond any doubt. My Lords, there is a problem here. As I note, even the noble Baroness, Lady Lady Brinton, acknowledged to some extent at committee, and we are offering the government a way of rectifying it.

I hope the government will soon seize sound sense and understand that we cannot in reality, be seen to ask our armed forces to serve, fight and potentially pay the ultimate sacrifice while we permit the possibility of future persecution in our cause. This is just cannot be right. Therefore, when amendment 56 is called, I will seek to test the opinion of this House.

19:23

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

So first, I would like to thank the noble Baroness Brinton, the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, for noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, for her proposals and acknowledge her commitment to addressing concerns about jurisdiction matters between the UK and visiting forces, beginning with amendment 49. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the legal frameworks governing the allocation of jurisdiction between the UK and a visiting force are, as has been discussed, set out in article seven of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and are incorporated incorporated into UK domestic law through section three of the Visiting Forces Act 1952.

With further reference to section 12. These agreements are already publicly available and the principles within them are and should be applied by UK prosecuting authorities on a case by case basis when questions of jurisdiction occur. There are no other separate, legally binding bilateral agreements or legal provisions that determine the allocation of criminal criminal jurisdiction between the UK and another sending state. Turning to amendments 50 and 51 as stated previously, the government is committed to identifying and applying, importantly, the lessons arising from the troubling cases that have been highlighted during the course of this bill. This includes the appropriate application and operation of jurisdictional arrangements under the Visiting Forces Act and how these are implemented across the criminal justice system.

Further to the action taken by the National Police Chiefs Council of Writing, Constabularies, as referred to regarding their commitments under the Visiting Forces Act, the point made by the noble Lady Brinton. The body is now working with constabulary Constabularies, the Crown Prosecution Service and wider government colleagues on the production of robust guidance for all forces on the appropriate implementation of the legislation. This will seek to develop specific instructions, and I hope the word instruct is helpful, as opposed to. As the noble Lady, noble Baroness Lady Bennett referred to the. Can you please, please. Instructions to ensure that decision making is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriately informed by the legislation? In particular, the government will be seeking to. Ensure that. Decisions are taken at an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Decisions are taken at an appropriate level with guidance or decision making is appropriate from the CPS for serious offences such the CPS for serious offences such as sexual offences and to the noble Baroness. Both noble Baroness Baroness. Both noble Baroness Point's robust data reporting built into those processes to ensure into those processes to ensure clarity and accountability. I believe that had the existing legislation been applied correctly in practice in the Captain Wilson case, jurisdiction would have been retained by the UK authorities and not ceded to the US. As a result, the government firmly believes that robust implementation guidance will be the most effective approach to ensuring that the legislation is applied correctly in practice, so that future cases are heard in the applicable jurisdiction and are appropriately auditable.

On the proposed conclusion of the Secretary of State, as raised by the noble Baroness Bennett as a final signatory on decision making, the police and CPS exercised their respective functions independently of one another and are operationally independent of government and Ministers. Against that background, we consider that the approach to formal guidance currently in development provides an appropriate framework to support the proper consideration of questions of jurisdiction. I specifically want to thank myself, and on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, Lord Coker, Baroness Brinton and Baroness Bennett, in particular for their leadership and engagement on this important issue to date and their commitment to ensure that lessons are learned from the experience of the victims they have personally engaged with.

I would like to assure them that their contributions through this bill process have, and will continue to inform the government's approach to the ongoing discussions with, amongst others, the National Police Chiefs Council. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to. The noble Baroness is able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. Before the noble Lady sits down, and I want to put on record my appreciation both for her serious engagement with this issue and that of the noble Lord, Lord Coker, as of the noble Lord, Lord Coker, as well. But just the point the noble Lady made. Made, and I acknowledge, about police and prosecutors about police and prosecutors operating independently of government. But I can't think of another circumstances where police another circumstances where police or prosecutors are having to deal with international national diplomatic conditions. And I don't really see how police or prosecutors can be equipped to make decisions that may have diplomatic consequences.

So are they not going to consider diplomatic consequences or or are they going to be swayed by diplomatic consequences without really knowing how to take account of that? I'm just concerned about how those two bodies are able to actually make decisions in the international context.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Baroness makes a. Sensible point that I haven't Sensible point that I haven't considered in detail myself at this point. I think the best thing I can do is perhaps respond to her in do is perhaps respond to her in writing with some thoughts around how that will work in practice, because we know what the system is. But how that all interacts is perhaps something that we can discuss in more detail. Thank you. My Lords, I'll now turn to the amendment 56, which seeks to make provision for members of our armed forces who have been deployed to be exempt from the HR.

I want to begin where I think there's some common ground. The noble Baroness, the noble Lord Minto, and others have raised serious questions about what is sometimes described as lawfare, about repeated investigations and litigation, about the legal certainty available to those who we ask to make extraordinarily difficult decisions in conflict, and about the proper relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in the conduct of military overseas operations. And clearly, these are incredibly important questions. Let me deal first with the proposed disapplication of the Human Rights Act in relation to overseas operations, and I will follow the lead of my noble friend the Minister, Lord Coker.

When it comes to legal matters and sticking to formal comments, except perhaps in my closing remark, the European Convention provides rights to those within a state's jurisdiction. As said in committee, in certain circumstances, that jurisdiction may extend beyond the state's territory and the case law on extraterrestrial territorial terrestrial jurisdiction has developed over time. I acknowledge the point by the noble Lord Fox in committee, Lord Lord Faulks in committee, that the position on how the convention applies outside the UK has evolved over time through the decisions of the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

But it is also important not to suggest that. The result is that the convention automatically follows a member of our armed forces wherever they are deployed, or that every act occurring during overseas operation necessarily falls within convention jurisdiction. The starting point in Strasbourg remains that jurisdiction is territorial, and that extraterritorial territorial jurisdiction is exceptional. Whether it arises depends on matters such as the authority and control exercised over an individual, or effective control over an area. The Strasbourg court has recognized limits to the doctrine, including in the context of active hostilities. That is important context. There is a legitimate debate about how the jurisprudence has developed, but it is not correct to treat the present law as imposing an unlimited or automatic extension of the convention to every battlefield decision.

I turn to the practical effect of the amendment. The proposed new section seven A would prevent proceedings being brought under section seven bracket one, bracket A of the Human Rights Act in respect of overseas operations. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made an important distinction in committee. His point was that the UK was bound by the convention before the Human Rights Act, and that Parliament can nevertheless restrict the remedy available under our domestic law. He accepted that ultimately, an applicant might still seek a remedy in Strasbourg. I accept that distinction, but this is where the government takes a different view.

We do not believe the answer is to restrict access to our own courts. The convention is based on subsidiarity. The government believes national authorities should have the first opportunity to address, and, where appropriate, remedy alleged convention violations before the matter is brought to Strasbourg. As it is the government's view that we remain compatible with article 13, then the question is if the section seven route is removed, what effect of domestic remedy should replace it? I now turn to the derogation because here I want to be particularly clear. Article 15 exists for a reason. It expressly recognises that in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, circumstances may require a state to take measures which depart from some of its ordinary convention obligations.

So let me make clear the government's position if circumstances arise in which article 15 is engaged and derogation is necessary and appropriate in accordance with our obligations under that article, the government will consider derogation. But that is different from imposing a statutory requirement automatically to derogate whenever an overseas operation is considered significant. However, I would like to end on this point. Although the government cannot accept these amendments, it does not mean that we should refuse to confront difficult questions about lawfare on the application of human rights law to modern conflict, a subject I have been involved in teaching in my previous work.

We should confront these questions, and there is a wider debate to be had about them, and I hope that we continue to do so. But this particular amendment does not provide the answer.

19:33

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I want to thank everyone who has spoken during this debate on two very different but very important issues. I want to particularly thank Lady Bennett for supporting my amendments, and in return I supported hers again. And return I supported hers again. And I thank the noble Lady, the Minister for for what she said about the campaign that we've been able to join. We were not the instigators, my Lords. There are more cases that are going to be made public. I'm hearing tens of tens of cases, and I realize that they're historic. I think my greatest fear is if the system that the noble Lady the Minister described to us is going to start catching the future ones quickly.

And that's why I want to ask her if the guidance she referred to is going to be police and CPS guidance and binding on both parties, because we must, even if we don't have. Excuse me, things going back to the Secretary of State, it is abundantly clear that the CPS need to be involved in any formal decision involving these particular, very difficult and hard cases. I'm really grateful that the government is looking at robust data reporting on this. I think that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Extremely helpful, and I thank the Minister for agreeing to write to both Lady Bennett and myself to both Lady Bennett and myself with some of the harder questions that we ask that might need a bit more thought, and we look forward to working with the Minister in future, if we can be of any help. Finally, my Lords, I just want to thank the centre for Military thank the centre for Military Justice who have been doing an enormous amount of work on in the background, and without them and the Guardian, we would not know the Guardian, we would not know about these cases at all.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 49. Be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 50. Baroness Brinton not moved. Amendment 51. Baroness Castle not moved. Amendment 52. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Whitley Bay. My Lords, when I saw that my amendment 52 had been grouped this way in a group titled by the Government Whips Office Service Personnel welfare, I did wonder

19:35

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

whether it sat easily with some of the other issues which we will touch on over the course of this touch on over the course of this debate, but on reflection, I think it does, because the huge debt of it does, because the huge debt of gratitude that we owe to our service men and women lasts long beyond their time on active service. beyond their time on active service. And in the case of those who have very sadly laid down their lives in the service of our nation, it of the service of our nation, it of course lasts forever.

I should say, as I did in committee, that I support the aims of clause 49 of the Bill and the changes that His Majesty's Government is seeking to make to speed up the processes and broaden the remit of the Protection of Military Remains act, 1986. I do think, as we've touched on in our earlier stages of debates, that that might benefit from greater precision about the term in military service. As mentioned in 492 B does that, in the case of vessels relate solely to those which have been formally commissioned or requisitioned, or is it to be assessed by reference to the functions and activities that they were carrying out?

If the Minister is able to say more about that, that may be helpful. But the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be aware of the concerns that I raised in committee about a specific but consequential area of law as it relates to military shipwrecks that was informed by research conducted by a team of academics at the University of Plymouth, led by Associate Professor Jason Lawther, and brought to my attention by the Joint Nautical Archaeological Policy Committee, whom I know from my time at DCMs when I was the Heritage Minister. In brief, these academics research has led them to the conclusion that the UK has inadvertently removed or at least weakened the protection of sovereign immunity, which is afforded to Royal Navy wrecks and other crown vessels.

That long standing principle is used to protect some 5000 British vessels, which lie at the bottom, the bottom of seas and oceans across the globe. Quite apart from the heritage and historical significance of these vessels, many of them constitute the last known resting place of UK military personnel who have given their lives in the service of this country. The removal of the protection afforded through sovereign immunity places these vessels at risk of salvage by foreign nations or other actors, such as has most regrettably occurred in the recent cases of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS repulse off the coast of Malaysia and HMS Exeter, and HMS encounter in the Java Sea.

We should, my Lords, be clear what that means. It is the graves of British service personnel being looted for scrap metal. The academics who conducted this research were naturally concerned at their finding, and have taken great pains to raise it with the Ministry of Defence and others before they are compelled to publish the research that has been publicly funded. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coker, for taking the time to meet me and professor Mike Williams from that research team, along with officials and lawyers from the Ministry of Defence to discuss this matter.

And I, like others, wish the noble Lord a speedy recovery. Though it was a helpful meeting, I think there is still a point of law that is at least debatable. And this is a matter where clarity is certainly needed. So I've retabled the amendment which I laid and brought before your Lordships in committee. It is, as I said, they're not an elegant or complete solution, not least because of the problems of scope in this bill, and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to say a bit more about the government's thinking in relation to the question of law that the academics have raised.

If she's able to say, is it still the position of the Ministry of Defence that section 231 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 applies only in UK territorial waters, and that sunken state wrecks beyond our territorial waters remain protected from unauthorised salvage under the principle of sovereign immunity. Is she confident that a salvage claim by a foreign nation or vessel could be resisted under a reasonable prohibition under article 19 of the International Salvage Convention? But above all, will His Majesty's Government act with some urgency to ensure that the legal position, which offers protection to the remains of military vessels and to the war graves of British service personnel, is clearly understood not just in our courts but around the world.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 39, page 69. Line 36. Insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the partial list. My Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Rise to move amendments 53 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rise to move amendments 53 and 5050 seventh in my own name, and to

19:41

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

5050 seventh in my own name, and to speak to amendment 54 in the names of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley and Baroness Penn. My amendment 53 is a re tabling of an amendment brought at committee, and it's really to seek further reassurance. The noble Lord. The Minister did discuss this with me ahead of this stage of the Bill, and my understanding is that what we're asking for should already be the case, that records should be passed on within a month or so, but that appears anecdotally not to be happening. And there have been issues.

So that's why that amendment has been tabled again. And amendment 57 on the Defence Investment Plan and looking to have more parliamentary scrutiny of it. If we were earlier in the day, I would perhaps suggest a fuller and more comprehensive debate on it. However, I'm not going to detain the House with that. But what I would like to do is very strongly support amendment 54, and obviously the noble and gallant Lord will move his amendment in due course. But this is something that was a manifesto commitment for all three parties removing immigration fees for non-UK family members of those who served with His Majesty's forces.

And from these benches, we strongly support it. We also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Penn, and the noble Lady Baroness Castle, over occupational maternity leave and pay. So we. From these benches we give the current set of amendments, with exception of amendment 56, which has sort of sneaked into this group fair wind and support.

19:43

Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, amendment number 54 follows on from the one I tabled in follows on from the one I tabled in committee. I am grateful for the committee. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lady, Baroness Penn, and for the guidance of the Royal British Legion in framing this amendment. All three major parties in their manifestos for the 2024 general election undertook to waive the visa fees for spouses and children of serving, or former members of His Majesty's Armed Forces, who had served for four or more years but did not already have UK citizenship.

Over the years there have been numbers many Gurkhas and Fijian nationality who have applied successfully but had to pay a fee of £155 per individual. Not even the 305 which I inadvertently mentioned in committee. But since April, this fee has risen dramatically and is now £3,226. So the undertaking of the political parties has become even more pressing. The noble Lord, the Minister, Lord Coco, kindly arranged a meeting after committee to discuss this issue with officials. It is a matter that the Mod alone could not resolve. As the Home Office and of course Treasury have direct interest, I should stress that this is just the sort of issue that requires consideration of due regard at departmental level for the direct application of the military covenant, and this is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.

I did suggest in the Second Reading debate that there might be a temptation to play ping pong between departments when an issue of due regard would require the agreement of two or more of them, and the silo approach might inevitably lead to delay, a lack of certainty of how many families would be involved, for example, was raised by the Treasury officials, and that led to an impression of a departmental finding difficulties rather than the solution promised in the manifestos. My Lords, we are now well over two years since that 2024 election, with little sign of progress to an agreed date.

What is required promptly is not only a choice of legal department, and I'm grateful now for the assurance from the noble Lord, the Minister, that Mod is taking the Department to lead, but approval is required for a firm date of resolution. Officials have already had over two years to research, devel and solve such an important type of electoral promise. Surely such a straightforward problem must be solvable in two years or so by any civil servant? As suggested in my amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Fees Regulations 2018, which seemed to be the correct path statutory path for eliminating these fees.

And I've included in my amendment the request for a transparent description of the exchanges between departments in reaching a solution. An indication of how such inter-departmental issues of due regard so closely affecting the military covenant will be addressed, addressed in the future would be helpful. This is, my Lords, a tripartite party manifesto commitment. And yet there is still no date. Surely that is an acceptable to His Majesty's Government, or indeed to the other two parties involved. Much as I do not wish to hold the noble Lady to account for the lack of progress, I feel that the view of the House supporting the manifesto commitment and fixing a date for implementation, might assist in persuading the government that the solution honouring it must be reached, and soon.

This is an opportunity for the government to be seen to be gripping their manifesto commitment to demonstrate that my own fears are groundless, and that the government has reached a tiny solution to give to the House. I look forward to the noble Ladies response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may add my support to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Bradley's Amendment 54 on fees for indefinite leave to remain for for indefinite leave to remain for families of serving personnel and veterans with a minimum period of service. As the noble and gallant service. As the noble and gallant Lord has said, families have waited long enough. I won't add to his

19:48

Baroness Penn (Conservative)

- -

words except to say, I hope that Mod has been successful in its work in corralling other government departments to finally get this commitment delivered on. And I, like others, will listen carefully to the Minister's response and turning to amendment 55 on paternity leave, I'd also like to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Coker, and his absence for their engagement on this issue. As I said at committee, this amendment is both about how we support military families, but also at its heart is it's about military capability. I understand feedback from the services raised concerns about the impact of extending paternity leave on operational capability and effectiveness.

And also, I think it is fair to say some skepticism about the importance of this issue to members of the forces and their families. And I'll take the two points in reverse. Since Committee stage, the dad shift conducted a survey of over 1700 members of of the military and Mod. Nearly a thousand fathers responded, and whilst 95% had taken paternity leave and 92% had taken the full two weeks, 94% felt that two weeks was simply not enough. And when asked about retention of the 544 that responded, 35% said their experience of paternity leave had influenced their thinking about leaving the armed forces.

This does not match the view reported from service leaders. At one of the meetings we had that this is not an issue, particularly for forces families, and I'm also concerned that the declining take up of existing paternity leave policies and at what appeared to be a view that this should be seen perhaps as a positive rather than as a warning sign around culture and workforce issues within our services. Turning to operational capability, I would appreciate greater clarity from the noble Lady, the Minister, on why, given that paternity leave, like other policies under JSP 760, can only be taken at the service's discretion and subject to operational requirements, that an increase in paternity leave cannot be managed without impacting on operational effectiveness.

That must already be the case where discretionary leave is granted. For example, in the cases where a birth is via C-section, making up nearly half of all births in our country today. And given that all our major allies manage policies significantly more generous than our own, I'd like to understand whether any efforts have been made to understand how they manage the operational impact of those policies, or indeed, the benefits they may see on retention within their services. I appreciate the work that is going on within the Mod to look at this issue further, and I understand that focus groups will be conducted across all three services later this month, and I'd be grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister, could confirm that these will be focused specifically on parental leave and paternity leave in particular, and that the results of these focus groups will be made public and available to Parliament.

And to follow up on that work, whether the Mod will commit to questions on parental leave and paternity leave, specifically being included in the next tri services Families Continuous Attitude Survey in 2027. It would also be useful to hear further information about the planned awareness raising activities for the Families Day in November. My Lords, at Second Reading, I referenced the workforce crisis highlighted by the Strategic Defence Review, a crisis not just of recruitment but of retention. It's unclear to me at the moment that the Mod or the services have serious plans to make the changes needed to address this, but I very much hope that I'm proven wrong.

19:52

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Baroness Pen, and to congratulate the noble Lady on to congratulate the noble Lady on both the powerfulness of her speech and the fact that she, the noble Lady is clearly making an impact, Lady is clearly making an impact, and we're seeing some reaction from the military, but we need to see much more. And I'm just going to add one point to the points made by the noble Lady about military capability and the effect on families. I think it's crucial that we also talk about the effect on society, children growing up, having strong, stable relationships with both of their parents is something that's going to be good for society in the coming decades.

It's not just an individual benefit or a military benefit. It is also a benefit for society. And that's something we really should be should be highlighting. I just want to also offer support for the amendment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. We have impossible immigration fees that are affecting so many people very badly as part of a hostile environment that's creating huge numbers of problems. I'd like to see this addressed more broadly, but very clearly within the scope of the bill. This is addressing a group of families, a group of people who we should not be making it impossible for them to maintain their immigration status through fees that we know the levels of pay just will make this impossible for some people.

And that's not an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acceptable situation. I declare an interest, as an officer of the all party parliamentary group on Fiji. I support amendment 54 in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley and Amendment 55. In the name of my noble friend Baroness Pen, on amendment 54. I'd Baroness Pen, on amendment 54. I'd like to put one point to the noble Baroness, the Minister, which is that our own rules currently

19:54

Lord Harlech (Conservative)

- -

that our own rules currently contradict themselves. A non-UK service leaver qualifies for indefinite leave to remain as of right after four years of service. And that's the entitlement. Yet the fee waiver begins only at six years. So for two full years, a veteran veteran holds a legal right to settle in this country and is charged over £3,000 to exercise it. I do not believe that anybody designed that. And it's it's not a question of generosity, but of incoherence, which the four year trigger in this amendment would correct. My Lords, then there are the families who are not covered at all.

So the fee is now £3,226 per person. As we've heard from other noble Lords, against £155 in 2003, a 26% and 26% of Army other ranks spouses hold non-UK nationality. So we're talking about a quarter of the families of the soldiers who make up the bulk of the army set against other rank pay. So for comparison's sake, in the United States, serving personnel and veterans pay no fee whatsoever to apply for naturalisation because it's a statutory exemption and it delivers full citizenship. And we're currently charging over £3,000 a head for something that offers considerably less than that.

The noble Lord. The Minister was candid in committee when he said that the government is committed to this, and added that even even to his own government, he sometimes says, can we get a move on? So I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will say that again today and give the House a date on amendment 55. As as my noble friend outlined so, so eloquently, the service personnel accept that operational need comes first. And when they take the oath, they accept that they'll miss birthdays, christenings, weddings, because that comes with the territory. But what this amendment addresses is quite different, which is the absence of a father in the first weeks of a child's life at a time when he's not deployed, but simply back at base, back at barracks, and nothing in the amendment changes the position that leave remains subject to operational requirements.

I mean, the problem that where they can't let anyone go is because the armed forces are too small, right? If we if we were staffed enough, if we had the right number of workforce, it wouldn't be a problem to let you know. People go for paternity leave the the noble Lord. The Minister told the committee that the wider parental leave review concludes in early 2027, by which time this bill will have passed. So the review cannot help the families. This amendment is about, and I do hope that the government will will make more government will will make more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progress in this area and fast. My Lords, it's the end of a long day, though not as long as it might have been, I suppose. As we reach the final group on this bill, and the final group on this bill, and so I shan't detain the House for long as that Committee. These benches fully support the efforts of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, to raise the issue of salvage law, and possible inconsistencies that and possible inconsistencies that affect our underwater military heritage.

I understand he's had discussions with the Ministry of

19:58

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

Defence and that he. And that if he is content with their response, then so am I, the noble and gallant then so am I, the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Craig of Radley has retabled his amendment 54, requiring the government to amend the Immigration and Nationality Regulation 2018 to waive the fees for indefinite leave to remain for for indefinite leave to remain for relatives of service personnel. As has been mentioned, this was a manifesto commitment for my party, manifesto commitment for my party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. I understand the noble and gallant Lord has reached an agreement with the government, which is welcome, and I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister will confirm this in her closing comments.

Had the noble and gallant Lord been pressed to test the opinion of the House, we would have supported him.

19:58

Baroness Antrobus (Labour)

- -

So I'll address each amendment in the order they appear on the Marshalled List, starting with amendment 52. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for bringing forward amendment 52 and for the meeting he had with Lord Coker on the 12th of October in Coker on the 12th of October in relation to salvage claims against military and Royal Fleet auxiliary vessels via section one of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is a principal piece of primary legislation in the United Kingdom that governs maritime law, ship registration and safety standards. And personally, for his thoughtful and important remarks about the protection of military remains.

And I share in his grave concerns. And I know he meant it in that sense. I. I have a small point of clarification. I'm not sure if it completely answers. If not, I can write to him afterwards. But to be classified as in military service at the time of their loss, vessels must have been formally requisitioned, utilised for armed forces purposes and operating under military command. Now, whilst it is recognised, there is an issue that requires clarification, it was agreed, I think, at the meeting that further assessment would be needed to fully explore the potential impact and unintended consequences that amending section 231 would have on maritime legislation.

So for that reason, we cannot accept this amendment. Now to the Armed Forces Bill, but I'd like to reassure the House that my noble friend the Minister, Lord Coker, will raise this with the Department of Transport Ministers and other government colleagues to determine a way forward, as this is legislation that sits in their area. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and on these grounds I ask him to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 53 on leaving defence, Medical Services care or DMs for short service personnel are provided with medical case summary for their GP from for their GP at their release.

It is a summary I accept and are provided with a form for the GP to request full records access in most circumstances, providing a complete healthcare record on discharge does not benefit the patient or GP. Beyond current methods of handing over care. Automatic provision also removes patient choice and provides a large volume of records, some of which may not be relevant to the service leavers. Future care and creating a second statutory duty duplicates existing law rather than improving access to records or healthcare. I do take the noble Baroness Lady Smith's point about anecdotally not having, and will continue to focus on on that, on compliance with data protection and security protocols.

That presents a significant workload which should be prioritised for clinical care and and cases which require this level of volume of records, administration and disclosure. Also, there are some good reasons not to provide a complete healthcare record to the individual unless it's been requested. An individual's full, unfiltered medical record may include sensitive mental or physical health notes, third party information, complex diagnoses or provisional opinions. And probably a reason that I haven't requested mine to be honest. As such, when a patient's full mental health record is required, their NHS GP is usually asked to request it to supplement their NHS record.

This ensures that it is received by healthcare professionals in full for summarization and in the correct registered practice. The Future Medical Digital System under Programme Cortisone aims to make the transfer of records faster, electronic and more reliable. It will ensure when leaving the military service, leavers will not have to wait for health records to reach their NHS providers. Transfer and record sharing will occur digitally upon registration, with the new practice turning to amendment 54, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig for his amendment. I thank him for making time to meet with me, and I think he knows I will work hard and fast in order to progress with his point.

The government has been clear that it remains committed to delivering the important manifesto commitment, as referenced by by several people, and I welcome the contributions from Lord Hollick and others in support. We are supportive of the intention behind the noble Lord amendment and will therefore commit to bringing a revised version of this amendment forward at Third Reading. Turning to amendment 55. As mentioned previously, there is currently an on going review on government, a government review of parental leave and pay. The review is considering costs, benefits and potential reforms across the system as a whole. While the review principally covers civilian parental leave and pay entitlements, the Mod will consider the outcome of that review for applicability to the armed forces to increase uptake of paternity and family leave in the armed forces, which has been an issue in the past.

The civil services believe clearer communication would help to increase uptake from late October. Defence analysis surveys will assess awareness across the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force through focus groups. Findings will follow when the report is complete and we will share these. And I just want to address a couple of the questions that the noble Lady, Lady Pen, raised, the focus groups that we are putting together will look at leaving the round, but with an emphasis on the awareness of paternity leave issues, as well as uptake of other leave provisions. The results will inform the evidence base and development of any case for change in policy provision.

We are considering specific questions on parental leave and paternity leave for the 2027 Tri-service Families Continuous Attitude Survey. As I've said, internal communications have been drafted to promote existing parental leave policies and to address address the take up of paternity leave. These will be published imminently and we will be factoring into our work on the evidence base, where and how allies have implemented more generous leave without impacting on operational effectiveness. As the noble Lady Baroness Pen pointed out, and the positive potential impact that might have on retention and indeed to the noble Baroness Lady Bennett's points around society more generally, which I take note more generally, which I take note of.

And finally, I turn to amendment 57. The dip is a deliverable and affordable plan, which details investment priorities out to 2035. But as with any long term plan, it will be prudent to keep it under review. We have committed in the dip to an annual update to Parliament before summer recess each year on progress against the dip and any changes in financial investments. While the publication of the dip took longer than originally anticipated, we do not accept that a separate statutory assessment of the impacts of delay is needed, and the Mod did not pause delivery while waiting for its publication.

Over 31 billion was spent with UK industry last year, and the Mod has continued to engage closely with industry partners, including SMEs, throughout the development of the Dip and Post publication. I thank noble Lords for their time and the debate today.

20:06

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, for the reply that she's just given and repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Coker, for the meeting that he and officials from Mod had. I should say as well. I express my support for all the other amendments that were moved in this group and commend the government for the Third Reading commitment that they've that they've just made in relation to amendment 52, as the noble Baroness says, the meeting that we had earlier this month did show that further research and work is needed with not just the Department for transport, but the Department for culture, Media and Sport, which relates to the the heritage aspects of it.

And I do encourage the the government to to take to carry that out with with some urgency. In the case of HMS Exeter, which was sunk in the Second World War in 1942, the wreck was not discovered until 2007, and a very moving service was held the following year, 2008, where some of the veterans from the Second World War attended in a service facilitated by HMS Kent and the Royal Navy Ensign was placed on the. The wreck of the ship as his naval tradition. Eight years later. By 2016, the remains of that ship had been entirely stolen.

This is the. The speed with which these crimes are being committed in waters around the globe. So there is some urgency here as well as some legal precision. So I'm very grateful to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Coker, for taking that forward. And on that basis, I'm happy to withdraw my amendment 52.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 53. Baroness Smith of Newnham not moved. Amendment 54. Lord Craig of Radley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Welcome very much. The remarks are an expression of support from are an expression of support from the Minister, and may I also commend her for rising so admirably

20:08

Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)

- -

to replace the noble Lord, Lord Coker. Very short notice. I think I Coker. Very short notice. I think I should also remind her that about 18 months ago the Ministry of Defence spokesman. In the other Defence spokesman. In the other place assured the House that. House that the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office were actively working on this manifesto commitment, and so I hope she will agree that a further six months would be far too long to wait to carry forward the promise in that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

manifesto. Not moved. Lord Craig Bradley

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. Lord Craig Bradley not moved. Amendment 55. Baroness Penn not moved. Amendment 56 the Earl of Minto.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Earl of Minto. To say I'd like to test the opinion of that. Well. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content, content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House

20:10

Division

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page